Jumbo, Ethics Dunce, Kaboom And Unethical Quote Of The Month: Hillary’s Jaw-Dropping Lie To Chris Wallace

hillary and Wallace

“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

—-Hillary Clinton to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, asserting that what was demonstrably false was true, regarding a public statement by Comey that can be Googled and watched on YouTube instantly.

My reaction when I saw that: KABOOM! The top of my head blew right off, bounced off the ceiling and knocked over the lamp. Wallace asked Clinton directly about what she had been saying to the public about her e-mails since May of 2015: that she did nothing wrong, that her private, secret e-mail server was approved by the State Department, that she never received or sent a classified e-mail…okay, that didn’t work, that she never knowingly sent a classified e-mail…wait, wait, that she never sent or received an  e-mail that was marked classified. Comey, in his televised, live statement announcing his decision not to recommend prosecution for Clinton, directly contradicted her.

In his careful statement Comey said,

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.,,,seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. …There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation…even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

There is no way that an individual of normal facility with the English language can listen to or read that statement and conclude that Comey was saying that Hillary’s answers to questions about the e-mails to the American public and the news media–for over a year!–were truthful, as in “full of truth.” A technical argument can be made, if one wishes, that  Comey didn’t say that Clinton lied, because maybe she is an idiot and incompetent, and didn’t know or understand what “any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position” should have known and understood, leading to her factually false (and constantly evolving as more facts where uncovered) explanations over months and months.

What should we make of this? The less left-biased of the Washington Post’s factcheckers, Glenn Kessler, slammed Clinton’s statement to Wallace with his worst lie rating, Four Pinocchios. He also seemed disgusted, writing,

Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigationFor instance, when Clinton asserts “my answers were truthful,” a campaign aide said she is referring to this statement by Comey to Congress: “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”

…In her response to Wallace, Clinton at one point appeared to deflect responsibility to her aides: “I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked. And so, in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, well, among those 300 people, they made the wrong call.”

…As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. …And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server.

Then—sigh!— Kessler’s bias sneaked through, as he wrote, “That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.” This is blatant equivocation. She refuses to admit it, and more than that, claims the opposite. That isn’t “having trouble,” that’s refusal to tell the truth, even to the extent of lying about what is right in front of everyone’s eyes. Hence the Jumbo designation. Indeed, Hillary’s lie on Fox is worse than “Elephant? What elephant?” Hillary is saying, “Elephant? That’s no elephant! It’s a puppy!”

The reaction of Atlantic’s Ron Fournier, a liberal journalist who nonetheless is capable of honesty and integrity, to Clinton’s answer to Wallace was anger and dismay:

This is a note to Clinton Democrats—a desperate plea, actually. Your candidate staged a winning convention in Philadelphia: big stars, tight messaging, and a compelling case against her rival, Donald Trump….Hillary Clinton may be rising in the polls as a result, which is good news for people like me across the political spectrum who find Trump to be vacuous, soulless, and temperamentally unfit for the presidency. Yet I’m not angry at Trump; I expect him to be repugnant. I am angry at Clinton, because she followed up her convention with another unnecessary lie; another excuse for people to distrust her; another thin reed upon which undecided voters could justify a belated allegiance to a man who former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called “a dangerous demagogue.”

And again, the bias slips out. “Slim reed”? Really, Ron? A political leader’s habitual and shameless lying to the American public to cover-up wrongdoing is a slim reed to justify rejecting a Presidential candidate as unfit and untrustworthy. Did I DREAM Watergate?

Then there is Mother Jones, a pretty typical progressive commentary site, which is to say, typically unable to be objective and debasing itself at every opportunity to deny that a Democrat/progressive/woman/black/ gay/ Hispanic  is capable of  wrongdoing or even mistakes. Mother Jones—I’m not kidding, now—used Hillary’s Unethical Quote Of the Month and Jumbo that made my head explode as a catalyst to publish an essay by its primary propagandist, Keven Drum, titled “Hillary Clinton Is One of America’s Most Honest Politicians.” It really did! Not only that, but the article, though obviously a Clinton defense tactic compelled by Clinton’s lie, didn’t mention the Fox interview while insisting that poor Hillary gets bad rap. Drum’s “proof” that she’s so honest?  A chart showing how PolitiFact, the most biased and untrustworthy (but, like Drum, also the most ideologically biased) rates other politicians’ honesty compared to Hillary.

Here’s the funny part: Drum’s article was posted in the afternoon. the day after Clinton’s Jumbo. PolitiFact registered its assessment of Clinton’s answer to Wallace at around 6 pm. The assessment, according to its “Truth-O-Meter,” was…

pants-on-fire

Wrote PolitiFact in part:

…When Comey announced the FBI’s findings July 5, it was clear that there are obvious inconsistencies between what Clinton said publicly about classified information on her private email server before her FBI interview and what the FBI found. Pointedly, Clinton said there wasn’t any classified information in her email, and he said there was….

We’ll also note a couple other major inconsistencies between Clinton’s remarks and the FBI’s findings:

Clinton repeatedly said she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department in 2014, about 30,000 emails. However, Comey said FBI investigators uncovered “several thousand” work-related emails that she had not handed over to the State Department.

And, Clinton has said her email servers “had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.” Comey said that while there’s no evidence anyone successfully hacked Clinton’s email servers, they certainly were susceptible to attack. There was no full-time security staff, which are found at government agencies and commercial email providers like Google. Further, he noted that Clinton used her personal email abroad, which could have allowed “hostile actors” to access her account.

Our ruling:…A reasonable person would interpret Clinton’s statement to mean that Comey has endorsed her public remarks about her email. This is not the case….Further, while not explicitly rebuking Clinton’s public comments, Comey highlighted a major problem with them. Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified information whatsoever in her email, marked or unmarked. After the FBI investigation, including the interview with Clinton, Comey said she unequivocally did.

We rate her claim Pants on Fire.

Fortunately for Hillary, that rating didn’t make it into Drum’s chart. Whew!

Ethics Alarms’ take on the latest Clinton deceitfest is this. Commenting upon James Comey’s statement, I wrote, as my final observation,

8. If Clinton has sufficient integrity and common sense, she will quickly accept the verdict and conclusions described by Comey, admit carelessness and poor decisions, promise that she has learned important lessons that will make her a better leader, and vow to do better.

Well, she flunked that test, didn’t she?  She flunked it because she treats the American public like serfs and fools, is incapable of being transparent or admitting wrongdoing, and deserves every bit of the distrust, dislike and suspicion most American have for her.

Hillary’s corrupted supporters like Drum—I may have to vote for this awful women, but I am not a supporter—need to dig deep and find some kind of integrity and ethical courage, so they can confront their hero—I know, I know, she has a vagina—and not allow her to enter the White House assuming that the nation doesn’t care if its leaders lie, and that just because they may elect a habitual liar when the alternative is an orangutan, a block of Limburger or Donald Trump doesn’t mean lying as a primary tool of governance is just fine with us.

41 Comments

Filed under Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Quotes, Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Jumbo, Kaboom!, Law & Law Enforcement, Leadership, This Will Help Elect Donald Trump, U.S. Society

41 responses to “Jumbo, Ethics Dunce, Kaboom And Unethical Quote Of The Month: Hillary’s Jaw-Dropping Lie To Chris Wallace

  1. Steve-O-in-NJ

    That’s called gaslighting, Jack – where you repeat lies to the point where someone else comes to doubt their own perceptions, maybe even throwing in a few insinuations that if they don’t see it your way they are stupid or not paying attention. “Oh no, I never said that,” “You’re mistaken,” “I’m sorry you misunderstood,” “I’m sorry you didn’t hear it right the first time around.” Maybe if you’re lucky you get “If I said that I misspoke” or “What I really meant was…”

    It kills two birds with one stone – it gives your supporters a way to say “See! See!” and shut down discussion by saying “She already said x, now let’s move on,” and it leaves your critics looking like they are either stupid or not paying attention. Hillary is a master of it, and that’s what will probably put her in the White House and enable eight years of lying, gaslighting, and general ignorance of the voting public.

  2. Jeepers! With the positively staggering amount of practice, proudly in its 5th decade, she’d be a more proficient, less bold-faced liar.

    Could it be her poor handling of classified material is overblown?

    From the “You gotta be effin’ kidding me” division of the “Folks, you just can’t make this stuff up” department of the ”Museum Of The Hard To Believe” the HRC campaign will be hosting a “Cybersecurity Fundraiser.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-hosting-cybersecurity-fundraiser/article/2003605

    Wouldn’t that be like signing up for a weight loss seminar held by Michael Moore?

  3. Other Bill

    So the Democrats are rooting that the Russians hacked their party’s email server and possibly the HRC campaign’s server so they can blame Trump for that, but they (including the current President) are cocksure HRC’s server-in-a-bathroom wasn’t hacked by the Russians or anyone else. Got it.

    • Other Bill

      I wonder whether Comey has come to wish he had indicted her.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        He couldn’t do that, only recommend charges, which Obama’s DOJ would not have brought anyway. Most likely there would have been negative career consequences. I hesitate to seriously say he would have woken up to kiddie porn on his computer or a bank account with one too many zeroes, but in all likelihood he would have found himself pushed out of his current post before his term was up, and under a Clinton administration he would have found himself shut out of any other governmental posts. I don’t think he is now a registered independent for no reason when he spent most of his adult life as a Republican. He isn’t interested in going home and looking for First Assistant DA posts in upstate NY.

      • It recently came out that Comey and Clinton are joined at the wallet. As if the DNC rigging was not enough.

        • Myron DaMan said, “It recently came out that Comey and Clinton are joined at the wallet.”

          Please submit some verifiable evidence to support that claim; evidence containing some real facts would be nice.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            He was an AUSA under Clinton and lead prosecutor on the Khobar Towers case, so there is a case to be made that he at least knew people in the Clinton administration at a high level. He also signed a brief supporting gay marriage. He appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Valerie Plame non-affair when he was John Aschcroft’s deputy. He declined to certify certain aspects of GWB’s domestic surveillance program as legal (Ashcroft was hospitalized at the time) and threatened to resign if the White House ignored him. He was a Republican most of his adult life but recently revealed he no longer is registered as one. He was raised Catholic but is now a United Methodist.

            A picture emerges of someone gradually drifting away from conservative views and maybe now decidedly liberal. Maybe in his years as a prosecutor he saw one too many innocent people steamrollered by prosecutors looking to grab headlines. Maybe he was disgusted with being put in the hot seat to certify a program he found objectionable. Maybe he was angry that the Fitzgerald investigation turned up very little for a lot of effort. Maybe somebody in his family or his wife’s family was gay and that made him move away from more conservative views to keep the peace around the Thanksgiving table. It’s theoretically possible that he’s basically a Boy Scout, with strong views on right and wrong, but I believe a possibility exists that he’s someone who feels like the GOP didn’t treat him too well, and now has his chance to give them the royal screw.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ,
              Where in your comment is the supporting evidence that “Comey and Clinton are joined at the wallet”? I’m not seeing it, not anywhere.

              Personally; I think Myron DaMan’s claim is a completely nonsensical smear, but at least I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt and offered him a chance to back up his claim.

              • Steve-O-in-NJ

                Because it isn’t there. This isn’t a direct response to DaMan’s specific statement, which isn’t provable. What this is is an attempt to show how Comey may have been influenced, even if he wasn’t on the Clinton take. All of this information is from his Wikipedia article, and backed by primary sources.

                • Steve-O-in-NJ said, “Because it isn’t there. This isn’t a direct response to DaMan’s specific statement, which isn’t provable. What this is is an attempt to show how Comey may have been influenced, even if he wasn’t on the Clinton take. All of this information is from his Wikipedia article, and backed by primary sources.”

                  So your comment was essentially unrelated to the comment to which you replied, a deflection of sorts. Got it. 😉

                  • Steve-O-in-NJ

                    Gotta put it somewhere, and it sort of relates to what Myron was saying. Now, do you have anything to say about the substance of what I posted?

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ asked, “Now, do you have anything to say about the substance of what I posted?”

                      Nope.

                      The discussion is really about Clinton not Comey. Regardless if what you shared from Wikipedia is true or false (considering the possibility of unreliable sources – I don’t believe that everything written in Wikipedia as fact – I cross reference) I consider your comment a deflection from the Clinton discussion.

          • I second your request. Zoltar. It sounds like something Trump would say.

  4. That whole interview just made me sick.

    The sentence that really gave me one of those WTF moments was when Clinton said, “Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say”, when “NOT TRUE” was exactly what Director Comey said when questioned under oath about Clinton’s statements to the American people – WTF! Clinton stooped to “that’s not what I heard” and “I believe” rationalizations when the facts say otherwise; I just can’t wait until we hear Clinton utter the trust me rationalization. (Right or wrong, I think those are rationalizations) Clinton’s answer to a pointed question contained deflections, twisted logic, lies, passing the buck to subordinates innuendo, and of course blatant non-answers, and what did Wallace do, he changed the topic to the Clinton Foundation.

    All these interviews seem to be tailored in such a way so opposing political sides can obtain a few superficial sound bites and not really get to the guts of issues and then they always seem to end with some tear jerking humanizing segment so everyone can say, awwwwwwww that was sweet. I’m sick and tired of all this pussyfooting around major issues; when are we going to get some really challenging extended interviews of Clinton and Trump?

  5. Steve-O-in-NJ

    P.S. I believe it was Churchill who once said that at times the truth is so important that it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies. Lest that be abused to justify Hillary’s constant lying as a matter of course, and as a primary tool of governing, it needs to be pointed out that Churchill was speaking not just in full-on wartime, but as the UK and all Europe faced an existential threat from the Nazis. So important were some secrets to guard that he had to leave the town of Coventry to be bombed to ashes rather than expose the fact that the German code had been broken and risk losing the entire war.

    The only threat Hillary faces, as president or just as Hillary, is having the fact that she is a egotistical tyrant hiding behind her gender with a so-so resume and a temperament completely ill-suited to governance exposed. To that end she is willing to tell any half-truth or outright untruth and insult and belittle anyone who dares dispute it.

    Trump may be a bully and he may have a severe case of brain flatulence, but he has not demonstrated the same tendency toward lying as a matter of course. What is more, neither the media nor Congress would allow him to get away with lying or outrageous behavior without calling him out on it. Like it or not, if their behavior over the past two years is anything to go by, Congress would just “surrender first and pretend to fight later” against a Hillary administration and the media would not only not call her out, but actively assist her in deceiving the public and silencing anyone who questioned her. That’s too close to tyranny for me to vote for.

    • 1. There’s a wonderful book about the British intelligence operations called “Bodyguard of Lies.”
      2. I generally agree with this, but come on: Trump lies ALL THE TIME. Then, when he’s caught, he denies he sid what he said, or just shrugs and says “So what?” The Muslims he “saw” celebrating 9-11. The claim that he opposed the Iraq invasion “from the beginning.” His claims that his various failed enterprises like Trump Steaks didn’t fail. His ridiculous accusation the Ted Cruz’s father was part of JFK assassination conspiracy; his bogus excuse for not releasing his taxes; on and on. The latest were his claim thet the NFl called him about the Democrats trying to use the NFL schedule to reduce viewers for debates, and his claim that he met Putin. He’s a different kind of liar than Hillary, but still a prolific liar. And they both have said that they never lie….

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        Aaaand no one lets him get away with it. The media is ALL OVER his lies. Are they all over hers?

        • Bad, bad Steve. First you say “he doesn’t lie” and when shown evidence that he does, you say, “yeah, well, he doesn’t get away with it!” That doesn’t justify or mitigate, and doesn’t make him better than Clinton in the honesty department, which is what you erroneously asserted.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            Perhaps not. BUT, it does mean that he is more likely to be held accountable, while Clinton will NEVER be held accountable for anything.

            • Again, that doesn’t make Trump more ethical or honest than Clinton.

              • Steve-O-in-NJ

                No, it’s probably six of one and a half dozen of the other – still not going to vote to give a proto-tyrant unlimited power.

              • Red Pill Ethics

                No, but I think the point that Steve is making with that last statement is to say that there are more external safeguards against the ethical failings of Trump than there are against Clinton. Anything unethical that Trump does is likely to be picked up by the media and shouted from the highest mountaintops. Anything unethical that Hillary does is just as likely to be swept under the rug. Trump’s power and lack of ethics, and consequent potential for permanent national or cultural damage, is checked and limited by the media, Clinton’s power and lack of ethics is enabled by it. She, in effect, does not have a predictable ceiling on the amount of damage she can do.

                As a test case: if both candidates during their hypothetical presidency were proven to be involved in, if not demonstrably responsible for, some level of high government cover up (a la Nixon), what is the relative likelihood that the media’s chosen narrative would drum up enough public support for an impeachment? There would be some measure of support to impeach both, but I would bet that only Trumps would achieve critical mass.

                With that in mind, and assuming (reasonably) that both candidates know where they stand in terms of media bias, who do you think will be less retrained in their presidency? Obviously Clinton. Trump will tow the line or get his ass sent to the curb the moment he oversteps it. Between two evils, I’m leaning towards the one that will be watched like a hawk and out in four years or less…. But outside of this binary ethics hypothetical, I’m still shopping for third party candidates.

                • As Christopher C. Morton put it, “It’s the difference between finding a pit bull on your front door step and finding a Komodo dragon.

                  You don’t know what the pit bull is going to do. It might lick your face. It might bite it off.

                  You know EXACTLY what the Komodo dragon is going to do.

                  I’ll pick the pit bull over the Komodo dragon EVERY time.”

                  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/07/robert-farago/democratic-national-platform-on-guns/#comment-2783957

                  • Lousy analogy.

                    Here’s mine: Do you want your plane flown by a pilot who might give you a rough ride or land at the wrong airport, even a foreign airport—or by a 10 year old..or a chimp? Or a pit bull, if you like.?

                    I don’t think it’s a tough choice if you are honest about it.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      I have a better one. Do you want to put SCOTUS in the hands of someone who might move it left, right, or leave it alone, or in the hands of someone who will definitely move it hard left, and probably significantly damage constitutional rights? I don’t want another liberal-packed court.

      • They are both liars. Yes. But while I find Trump odious, he is far and away more benign. There is a scary, ugly and questionable trail behind the Clintons.

      • Does Trump lie or does he say things that aren’t true?

        I don’t mean this to excuse him, a liar or stupid, both should preclude someone from higher office, and in any other year it probably would. But… I mean, he was talking about the minimum wage with Sean Hannity last week and took 5 discreet and mutually exclusive positions on the minimum wage in 45 seconds. Did he lie four times or does he open his mouth and is as surprised as the rest of us at the garbage that comes out?

        These hit me as positions that he OUGHT to have thought about, but just hasn’t, sometimes even talking his way to a policy point in the course of the discussion (Which is damning on it’s own, I get it.).

        Is a lie better or worse than a thoughtless, and wrong, comment?

  6. J. Houghton

    None of this really matters in the world of “Newspeak.”

    • Wayne

      I’m thinking of moving to Texas and help in organizing a new country. Who needs this crap!!

      • Slick Willy

        If you come here, don’t expect the social safety net prevalent in more liberal states. which is one of the reasons you want to come here.

        Sorry, I have a pet peeve with insane asylum inmates (liberal state residents) escaping to states and then inflicting the same insanity they left behind on the innocent population already there (see Oregon, Colorado, and the Peeple’s Republic of Austin)

        • Slick Willy

          Not meaning to imply that you are insane, Wayne. Nor that YOU live in a liberal state. Or that you think Texas has the same social safety net as more liberal states.

          I fired from the hip… should let that be a lesson to me!

  7. Rich in CT

    Elephant? That’s no elephant; it’s a puppy!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s