Hillary Clinton

Clinton's Latest Defense: Her Email Statements Were Not True, but She Was Truthful

The Democratic nominee's proxies argue that she was merely reckless with the facts.

|

MSNBC

In March 2015, when The New York Times first reported that Hillary Clinton relied on a personal email account and server as secretary of state, she insisted "there is no classified material" in the emails she sent and received through that account. A few months later, she modified that defense, saying, "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time." A month after that, she said she never "received anything marked 'classified.'" Now that it turns out none of those statements was true, Clinton's new position is that she "had no reason to believe that those emails were classified."

Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, and her campaign press secretary, Brian Fallon, both used that formulation during interviews on MSNBC yesterday, trying to explain in what sense her false public statements about the emails were "truthful," as she described them in a jaw-dropping Fox News interview on Sunday. Although what she said was not true, the latest defense goes, she thought it was, so she was truthful.

Mook and Fallon noted that FBI Director James Comey, in his congressional testimony last month, said, "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI." Although Mook thinks that means "everything she said to the FBI was true," that does not follow, since Clinton could have said false things she thought were true. In fact, according to Mook, that is what happened. "What she said to the FBI is the same as what she said [to the general public]," Mook said. If so, she said things to the FBI that the FBI determined were not true.

Although Comey repeatedly said there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton with deliberately misleading the FBI (a felony), he also repeatedly refused to say whether he thought Clinton deliberately misled the public. "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer," he said. "I really don't want to get in the business of trying to parse and judge her public statements."

While Clinton may not have been consciously lying in her initial public statements about the email controversy, she was at the very least reckless with the facts, saying things she hoped were true rather than things she knew to be true. Comey likewise found that she was "extremely careless" and "negligent" in her handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information," although he did not find enough evidence to accuse her of deliberately breaking the law. While gross negligence would have been enough for a criminal charge under 18 USC 793, Comey said applying that standard to Clinton would have been unfair, since there has been only one such prosecution in the century since the statute was enacted.

That does not mean it is unfair for voters to judge Clinton by her negligence with classified information. In his July 5 statement explaining his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton, Comey had this to say about an email chain that included classified material: "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." He added that "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."

In her Fox News Sunday interview, Clinton tried to pass the blame to her underlings:

I was communicating with over 300 people in my e-mailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified….

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.

At the time, there was no reason in my view to doubt the professionalism and the determination by the people who work every single day on behalf of our country.

Fallon repeated that defense yesterday, saying the classified emails "were sent to her by people that know the difference between what's classified and what's not, so she was acting entirely in good faith and had no reason to believe that those emails were classified." That's one way of looking at it. Another way: Clinton should have known that by insisting on using her personal email system for all of her electronic communication as secretary of state, contrary to her department's policy, she ran the risk of exposing classified information. Whether her choices actually endangered national security or not, they demonstrated a fear of transparency and an arrogant disregard for the rules everyone else is expected to follow—running themes of Clinton's career.

Clinton's attempts to minimize or explain away her carelessness with classified material have demonsrated a carelessness with the truth that is troubling in its own right. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gave her latest performance Four Pinocchios, a rating reserved for "whoppers."

Defending that whopper yesterday, Mook emphasized that Clinton, after initially dismissing the email flap as inconsequential, eventually admitted she had erred. But he refused to specify the nature of the error—whether she regretted dodging the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, or felt bad about flouting the State Department's rules for handling sensitive information. "She has said this was a mistake," Mook said. "She's apologized. Obviously, it's created a lot of complications, a lot of difficulty, and she regrets it." It sounds like Clinton's only regret is getting caught.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

179 responses to “Clinton's Latest Defense: Her Email Statements Were Not True, but She Was Truthful

  1. Jerry, just remember. It’s not a lie… if you believe it…

    – George Costanza

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

    1. So she blames Benghazi on a video and her lying on a 20 year old sitcom?

      1. I believe she has adopted a George Constanza communications strategy. Lie constantly, look foolish by the end of each episode.

        1. This depends on the definition of the word “lie.” The Seinfeld program is harmless satire for the entertainment of a certain segment of the American population. But Clinton’s competent, mature statements are no more “lies” than it’s a “parody” to send out an outrageous “Gmail confession” portraying a distinguished academic department chairman as stating: “This is just the politics of Dead Sea Scroll studies. If I had given credit to this man, I would have been banned from conferences around the world.” When you say something’s a parody, you better have proof beyond any reasonable doubt at all, and when you say something’s a lie, you better have very strong proof. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. It depends what the truth of “truth” is.

            1. it’s whatever we say it is…come on how long have you been lurking around here?

      2. She was still young then – she didn’t realize that the main characters on Seinfeld are horrible people and not role models to aspire to. Damn network tv ruining our kids.

        1. Not young enough for Bill.

          1. Hey, if I was married to that, I’d cheat too. Or be celibate.

            1. I wouldn’t fuck her with your dick!

        2. she didn’t realize that the main characters on Seinfeld are horrible people and not role models to aspire to

          Actually it’s entirely possible that compared to the people she was around – politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, her husband etc. – that the characters on Seinfeld might have seemed like paragons of virtue to her.

          1. They were. They never killed anyone or stole anything of significant value. Far better than the con-men and crooks she teamed up with back then.

    2. So basically the big two are Trump (a known liar given that no one thinks he actually believes half the stuff he says), and Clinton (a sociopath, who lies but believes her own lies).

      “She has said this was a mistake,” Mook said. “She’s apologized. Obviously, it’s created a lot of complications, a lot of difficulty, and she regrets it.” It sounds like Clinton’s only regret is getting caught.

      Or regretting that anyone’s even deigned to bother with this in the first place.

      I’m almost wishing for some Hillarybot to tell me in person that I should vote for her just for the satisfaction I’d get in telling them to fuck off.

      1. I’ve noticed that she says “it” was a mistake without ever defining what she means by “it”.
        She lets us fill in the blanks about what “it” means.

        1. I sometimes wonder whether H and her ilk *actually study and practice* how to be evasive or whether it’s just, um, in their nature.

          (Yes, I know — Why not both?)

          1. “whether it’s just, um, in their nature” … that would depend upon what the meaning of the word “is” is.

        2. Hillary’s a lawyer and a Clinton–using these deliberately vague terms when caught in something shady is what they do.

          1. Every time I hear a Clinton speak, I hear a lawyer trying to be clever by stretching the English language to the breaking point.

            1. Me, too.

              And I wish I had her under oath so I could cross-examine her and crowd her into blatant contradictions and unquestionable lies. Its unfortunate that the media doesn’t do that any more, whether through lack of skill or lack of motivation.

              1. Also lack of press conferences.

              2. You can’t cross examiner her during an interview, because she won’t directly answer the question. There’s no judge to force the issue. The Chris Wallace interview on Sunday was excellent and he clearly pointed out she had lied. She just blew it off and kept going.

                That’s probably the toughest interview she’ll have before the coronation.

                http://goo.gl/og8XVo

                The Washington Post did give Clinton 4 Pinocchio for her obvious lies during the interview.

                https://goo.gl/yjx5QR

                When I read the editorial by The Washington Post, I loathe Director Comey even more than I previously did. He clearly sold out the country. I’m sure that he felt honorable by telling everybody how much Clinton clearly broke the law, right before he told us there wasn’t enough to indict her.

                Really, unless someone was holding a gun to his kids head, there’s just no excuse for such a transparent white wash. If he had just given us a standard bullshit white wash, at least we could maintain the fiction that she really was innocent. But no, he had to point out how guilty she was and then conclude with the she’s too important a person to indict. I’ve never seen a clearer case of FYTW.

              3. Chris Wallace did a commendable job on Sunday,which is why this is in the news again.

                He played her past statements, said the FBI found them not to be true, and asked her to comment – at which point she said, “Not what I heard. FBI said I was truthful.”

                He already had the videotapes of Comey queued up to shoot down that reply. Then she had to resort to throwing everyone she had ever emailed with under the bus “How can you expect me to know what’s classified? I relied on the professionals, and they obviously let me down!”

          2. Very specifically vague though. They’re talking past the truth.

        3. Bill taught her well

        4. I think by “it” she means herself. And she’s right; she certainly is a mistake.

      2. So basically the big two are…

        an asshole and a cunt. Yes, that’s our top two choices for POTUS.

        1. since many are basing their voting decision this year on the candidates’ anatomy, I think you’ve summed it up accurately

          1. Speaking of the candidates’ anatomy, I posted this yesterday in another thread, but it seems relevant here:

            Provocative Mural of Hillary Clinton Goes Viral

            1. She wishes she looked that good. I read a few sites that are constantly on Michelle Obama for her looks, and can’t see it. OK, Mrs. Obama isn’t playboy material. She isn’t hideous. Hillary is hideous. And never more so than when she’s trying to look appealing.

              *shudder*

          2. Asscunt 2016!

        2. An asshole, a cunt, and a Johnson, don’t forget

          1. As a cis hetero white privileged woman, I’ll go for the Johnson every time.

          2. 15 yards, roughing the reader.

          3. “See, there’s three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes.”

          4. Gimme the Johnson. Wait, that didn’t come out right. I’m not gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with it though.

      3. I’ll forgive Hillary if she pleads guilty to high treason, and accepts a sentence of life without parole. sentence to be served in solitary confinement in a Supermax facility.

        1. where’s she’s raped repeatedly by her cell mate Big Doris…

      4. believes her own lies

        More like, she’s convinced that we’re all stupid enough to believe her lies if she just repeats them brazenly and often enough.

        -jcr

  2. Clinton’s new position is that she “had no reason to believe that those emails were classified.”

    Oh, FFS!

    You were the fucking *Secretary of State*, you pathological liar!

    1. I used to send radio messages for an Intelligence Major. He would take the message from interrogators and scouts, write it on the message pad, think for a minute, then assign the classification. If a mid-level Marine Officer can do it, shouldn’t the Secretary of State be able to recognize information that ought to be classified?

      1. If a mid-level Marine Officer can has to do it [because he is one of the little people]

        FTFY

      2. I’ve also worked on classified programs for a defense contractor. I was expected to be able to identify when something contained classified information and mark it appropriately. The fact that the SoS was unable to do the same means she’s a lying sack of shit, or one of the most incompetent morons to ever be the SoS. Or both. Probably both… no wait, definitely both.

        1. Her office was in a fucking SCIF…

      3. Well, it was just shown that she (and Huma) never took the training classes.

    2. Why would the Secretary of State expect that job to ever involve sending or receiving classified information?

      1. She just thought that the professionals, as well as Obama, judged her to be so incompetent that she would never actually receive any classified emails. And she was right. Anything that got through was an accident.

      2. That’s the astonishing thing. This was her sole email account. So she would have had to believe that during her entire tenure as SecState, not one single email to or from her contained classified info.

        It would be different if she had a .gov account. Then, there could conceivably be some credibility to saying she thought all the classified stuff was in the .gov, and any that leaked into her personal account were accidents.

        But no, she has told us, repeatedly, that she spent her entire career as SecState without getting a scrap of classified info via email.

        1. And yet most Dems are willing to full throatedly support this creature.

        2. Even the .gov account to which most people refer (at the State Department, but really just about anywhere that handles classified) is absolutely, positively not designed to handle classified information. Any electronic transfer of classified information must be done on a completely separate, air-gapped (or “diode” protected) network that is entirely separate from the main unclassified network. If classified stuff ends up on the unclassified network that is a bad thing.

          However, using the provided unclassified system enables any accidental spills to be contained more easily. That she didn’t do that is precisely why it’s considered extra-egregious to those who have dealt in this realm (and had to follow the DoS rules and regulations!). There was no way to contain data spills because there was no control over her system.

          1. Gotta use SIPR for classified emails.

        3. “That’s the astonishing thing. This was her sole email account. So she would have had to believe that during her entire tenure as SecState, not one single email to or from her contained classified info.”

          No RC, this is purely a “I’m above the Law” stance.

        4. Let’s not forget that the whole purpose of having her own server in the first place was to violate the Official Records act.

          -jcr

    3. She had a yoga class that day and couldn’t make it to orientation.

    4. The thing is – and I can’t seem to get my Liberal friends to see this – either she knew perfectly well she was breaking the rules and didn’t f*ing care, or she didn’t know because she’s a sub literate f*ing imbecile. Either choice isn’t exactly Presidential.

      1. But she has lady parts and a D by her name. Ergo, they are with HER.

      2. This is why you need to take your liberal friends to the vet and have them put down ASAP. At the very least, have each of them both spayed, and neutered (both procedures, regardless of gender).

  3. “What she said to the FBI is the same as what she said [to the general public],” Mook said.

    Then she won’t have any problem saying the same things under oath for the Judicial Watch deposition, right? RIGHT?!

    1. she won’t have any problem saying the same things under oath for the Judicial Watch deposition

      No, she won’t have any problem with saying the exact same load of horseshit while under oath. And she still won’t face any consequences for perjuring herself. Laws are for us little people, not the nobility.

      1. I’ll vote for Trump if he promises to prosecute Hillary for perjury.

        1. I’ll vote for Trump if he promises to fuck Hillary in the ass weekly for the entire term of his presidency

    2. We don’t want to go around triggering another batch of headache induced amnesia, now do we?

  4. Trump may be crazy,but,has never held any office. Hillary has a long history of lying,selling influence war boner and show’s complete disrespect for the constitution while a ‘first lady’ and in congress and at state.

    1. The only reason to prefer Trump over Hillary is that impeachment would hang over his head like Damocles’ Sword.

      Hillary would be free to do as she pleases. She is above the law and Democrats will excuse any wrong committed by a Clinton.

      1. Technically, no. Her husband got impeached when a Republican House called him on his lies. She would likely get the same treatment. But, impeachment didn’t ruin Bill’s career.

        1. Technically, yes. Trump would fear impeachment because he could be convicted in the Senate. Hillary would have no such fear.

          1. Unless Republicans lose the House, Trump wouldn’t even face impeachment hearings because TEAM. Hillary OTOH could get impeached.

            But, neither of them could be convicted in the Senate because of the 60 vote cloture role. If there is anything that would 100% get filibustered, it is having one TEAM’s president about to get convicted and removed from office, unless it is something so incredibly egregious that even partisan hacks would have to convict. And we’ve already seen that felonious behavior doesn’t even disqualify one from running for president.

            1. I believe it’s 2/3 to convict in the Senate. Cloture is for legislation.

          2. Shrillary wouldn’t believe it could happen even if the impeaching body were 100% enemies. She wouldn’t believe it could happen WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.

        2. Technically, after the political price paid by Team Red for going after Bill, they won’t try impeachment even if she is caught on video breaking into the Watergate hotel in 2020 to do recon on the RNC.

      2. Hillary could roast kittens on the White House lawn and the media would somehow spin it into something positive.

        1. FEEDING THE HUNGRY!! ENDING THE STRAY CAT EPIDEMIC!! HAVING A GRILL-OUT LIKE A NORMAL HUMAN BEING, LOOK HOW RELATABLE SHE IS!!

        2. “President Clinton Heroically Solves Stray Cat Infestation”

        3. She’s fighting heart disease too: “Cat, the other white meat.”

        4. Hillary could roast kittens on the White House lawn and the media would somehow spin it into something positive.

          Didn’t she already save some orphans from a Bengal Tiger attack with a flamethrower?

      3. The only reason to prefer Trump over Hillary is that impeachment would hang over his head like Damocles’ Sword.

        Just like the threat of SF’ing links hangs over the commentariat’s heads.

        1. Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead,
          Forgot the cry of gulls, and the deep seas swell
          And the profit and loss.
          A current under sea
          Picked his bones in whispers. As he rose and fell
          He passed the stages of his age and youth
          Entering the whirlpool.
          Gentile or Jew
          O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
          Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

          1. +2 Iain Banks Culture novels

            1. And +1 T.S. Eliot references.

      4. Yeah i feel like a default should go to republicans cause at least then the media might ‘try’ to hold them accountable.

    2. In short, she’s likely to do more damage than Trump, if only because she has more practice.

  5. Now that it turns out none of those statements was true, Clinton’s new position is that she “had no reason to believe that those emails were classified.”

    I don’t see a problem here. James Comey and by extension Loretta Lynch have made clear that if your intentions are pure, you can’t have committed a crime. Mens rea is a bulletproof defense if your pay grade is high enough. Why shouldn’t Clinton hew to that line?

    1. *** calms down ***

      Yes, that is apparently the case situation.

    2. Sweet Loretta Lynch thought she was a woman
      But she was another man
      All the girls around her say she’s got it coming
      But she gets it while she can

  6. I mean, sure. If this was some controversy about one classified email that she forwarded to Kim Kardashian or some shit, that “I couldn’t have known” defense would be reasonable.

    But look at what she’s actually trying to claim. She’s trying to sell the public on the idea that she came in as Secretary of State completely unaware that she might be sent classified info on her primary email account.

    Which do you believe, that Clinton thinks she’s above the law, or that she’s literally too stupid to understand the function of a State Department? (It’s not the latter.)

    1. Which do you believe, that Clinton thinks she’s above the law, or that she’s literally too stupid to understand the function of a State Department? (It’s not the latter.)

      She understands the function of a State Department: it’s to let her extort financial contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign leaders, and it’s a political stepping stone to higher office. That’s also why those emails had to disappear.

    2. No. She KNOWS she is above the law. At this point its just about deflecting and convincing the low-information voters to pull the lever for her at enough levels to allow the fixers to cheat the vote counts to secure the win.

    3. Here’s the onion; will the peripatetic attack dog Trump hang this around her neck in the debates? That might be worth watching.

    4. She’s shown herself to be ostentatiously stupid, from time to time. She has a certain feral cunning, but intelligence not so much.

  7. Ah, the classic Clinton defense: “I’m not a criminal! I’m just stupid! And that’s no reason not to put me in charge of enough nuclear weapons to vaporize the planet!”

    1. It’s depressing that the Democrats can’t do better than Human sucker-fish like the Clintons and third generation xeroxes of Kennedy like Kerry.

      1. you misspelled 8th generation ditto forms.

      2. Can they doctor images to make her look more like Kennedy this time?

  8. All those words Sullum.
    Let’s summarize them to: She Lied.
    That’s what a, not insignificant, majority of Americans believe.
    Now the question is – will you vote for Herself?

    1. Now the question is – will you vote for Herself?

      Duh, all these COZMO CUCK-FAGZ are in the tank for Hitlary. IT IS KNOWN. /sarc

  9. I’m sure our friends on the left will be dutifully busting out “truthiness” again like they did for Bush?

    No?

    Huh!

  10. She’s using the Nixon defense: “If the President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal”

  11. It sounds like Clinton’s only regret is getting caught.

    This X 1,000,000.

    1. She got exonerated.

      1. FBI Director Comey’s “exoneration”:

        To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

  12. I ain’t no fancy Ivy League law-talking guy, but I knows that they threw Martha Stewart in prison for a lot less than this.

    1. Funny story, Hillary Clinton did exactly what Martha did, and only got rich.

  13. As Clinton’s cultish proponents have made clear, she’s insusceptible to criticism, and the progressive media has exempted her from responsibility for her conduct. She is answerable to nobody, and for nothing.

    1. Completely different. Stewart lied to a government officer, triggering 18 U.S.C. ?1001. Clinton merely lied to the American people, triggering exactly nothing.

      1. If she lied to the pipple, and said exactly the same thing to the FBI, then she lied to the FBI, no?

        Remember, Comey said they didn’t put her under oath because they didn’t need to, that lying to the FBI is a federal crime whether or not you are under oath.

    2. Well you can’t expect a woman to trouble her pretty little head with all this macho James bond bullshit. She’s too busy caring about kids, duh.

  14. Comey likewise found that she was “extremely careless” and “negligent” in her handling of “very sensitive, highly classified information,” although he did not find enough evidence to accuse her of deliberately breaking the law.

    That’s a generous interpretation. He said something along the lines of ‘No prosecutor would take this case.’ I interpret that to mean that there is not federal prosecutor that would be stupid enough to go against a Clinton as a matter of career and self-preservation.

    1. That’s the way I interpreted it. I would be *shocked* to see a prosecutor going after the Clintons survive (as in, stay alive), and continue to have any career prospects. They have cronies in business and many people they appointed still head up government agencies. It is highly doubtful that anyone doing anything negative to the Clintons would not be punished in some way.

  15. “That does not mean it is unfair for voters to judge Clinton by her negligence with classified information.”

    Exactly.

    The Clintons are famous for responding to questions about whether what they did was ethical with answers about whether what they did was legal. That should be especially loathsome to my fellow libertarians–seeing a clear difference between ethical obligations and whether they should be made legal obligations is a huge chunk of what libertarianism is all about.

    And the question before us really isn’t whether Hillary should be held accountable in a court of law. The question is whether voters should reward Hillary Clinton for her ethical lapses with executive privilege, the power to pardon, the bully pulpit, and control of the FBI. The chances of her using those powers and her office unethically are extremely high–regardless of whether she does anything that’s technically illegal.

  16. Reality is, like,,, totally subjective, Man.

  17. It’s time again to play fun with JB’s progressive friends!

    Here we have the latest classic, wherein JB’s friend argues that Hillary’s just not as slick as other politicians, and the only reason you’re criticizing her is that she’s a woman.

    Overall, my opinion is this: she’s not a natural politician, so often gets herself into trouble that other politicians avoid, because she’s not as slick (eg as her husband). But when you consider the intense scrutiny she has been under by people who HATE HATE HATE her and would do anything to bury her (literally) if they could, the fact that she has remained relatively unscathed is remarkable. I also think that gender has played an insidious role in the evaluation of her as a candidate. And for fucks sake, please don’t try and convince me that you’re not gender biased; this is not a personal assessment of any of you, just an assessment that gender plays a role in what we and the media expect of males (and male candidates) versus female candidates. I mean, as recently as 1992 there were 2 female senators out of 100 (there are now 20). Basic stuff like how a tough guy gets kudos and how a tough woman gets called a bitch. I mean, how can anyone tell me that we don’t have a gender issue, that gender has played no role in anything Hillary related, yet it’s 2016 and she is the only really credible presidential candidate that we have ever had. Even if you have no gender bias, that doesnt mean that the media doesn’t.

    1. And a follow-up comment from the same person:

      and for the record, I stated my opinion of Hillary not to sit here and defend her against all of you who hate her. I’m just tired of the narrative, that nobody actually likes her or thinks she is a good candidate. It’s not true, not by a longshot, but the more that narrative gets repeated the more it becomes “truth”; the more people who like her stay quiet, and people who are unsure about her (if they exist) get pushed into the don’t like her camp. Both on the island and on facebook and beyond. And it’s not the truth. So the next time one of you wants to say that, it will be explicitly false. Now you have to at least add me as a disclaimer.

      So, you see, everyone actually likes her, it’s just the damn media’s fault.

      (note: After I called him out on that bullshit, he called me an idiot for misreading his comment)

      1. “No one who matters likes Hillary Clinton.”

    2. Horseshit like this is why I stay away from Derpbook and social media in general, and try to avoid talking politics with the few friends and family that I do have. I’m worried I might lose what respect I have for them.

    3. I thought more white women vote compared to the overall average.

    4. That’s a lot of words to say nothing

    5. The idea that Hillary is being busted on because she is a woman can only be honestly held by someone with a memory shorter than the last 5 minutes. I remember how bitterly her husband was criticized in his day. I remember George W. Bush being called “Bushitler” and being likened to a chimpanzee. I remember watching MTV and seeing some band doing a music video showing Ronald Reagan being a senile git who upon being awakened by his alarm clock pushed the nuclear button. I can go on and on with this even if I just keep it to things that happened in my lifetime.

    6. I mean, how can anyone tell me that we don’t have a gender issue

      We do have a gender issue: feminism propels utterly unsuitable women like Hillary into positions of political power. If she were a man, she wouldn’t even be in the running.

  18. Clinton’s new position is that she “had no reason to believe that those emails were classified.”

    It’s not like she was the Secretary Of State, in charge of diplomacy and negotiation with other nations, or something.

    1. Her defense boils down to “I have lost touch with reality to such a degree that I am not really lying when I say things that are obviously counter to the facts”. And when you consider the state of her health, you might be right to believe her.

    2. I have a rock for sale that keeps man-eating tigers away.

  19. With a last name Mook, there is literally no other job this guy could do.

    1. I believe is he a gay man, fellow Swifty, so I am pretty sure it is illegal to insult him.

    2. “Robby Mook” is pretty much the perfect name for a man who has made whatever choices led him to his current employ.

      1. Joey ‘Clams’ Scala: And we don’t pay mooks.
        Jimmy: Mook? I’m a mook?
        Joey ‘Clams’ Scala: Yeah
        Jimmy: What’s a mook?
        Johnny Boy: A mook, what’s a mook?
        Tony DeVienazo: I don’t know…
        Johnny Boy: What’s a mook?
        Jimmy: You can’t call me a mook!
        Joey ‘Clams’ Scala: I can’t?
        Jimmy: No…
        Joey ‘Clams’ Scala: [pause] I’ll give you mook!
        [punches Jimmy in the face]

  20. Thank goodness there are non-legal consequences to Hillary’s misbehavior with her email.

    Assange might have gone after Hillary anyway for being part of the Obama Administration, which is trying to have Assange prosecuted under espionage laws–unlike every other news organization that publishes leaked information.

    However, it also looks like Assange is extra miffed at Hillary personally for tracking his extradition hearings–like her State Department was orchestrating them through the UK and Sweden. That information was apparently revealed through her emails according to Wikileaks’ twitter account.

    http://tinyurl.com/hcamneh

    If Hillary had taken normal procedures with her email, maybe she would have avoided much of the anti-Clinton static by Bernie supporters at the convention. Of course, the ethical lapses by Debbie Wasserman Schultz that Hillary subsequently rewarded by hiring Wasserman Schultz onto the Hillary campaign didn’t help.

    The Clinton machine is playing it like Assange has a vendetta against Clinton–but wasn’t one of the central messages of V for Vendetta that this sort of thing needs to be personal?

    If someone has a personal grudge against Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton wronged him, is that necessarily wrong?

    1. Assange does have it out for Clinton. But only someone as dumb as Shreek or Tony would think that somehow makes the information he is releasing less damaging to Clinton.

    2. Sometimes you have to put aside your personal grudges for the higher good, the way Rick let Victor Laszlo have his woman so that the Third Reich could be brought down. In this case, though, Assange’s personal grudge aligns perfectly with the higher good.

  21. Clinton runs weapons to Jihadis, including ISIS.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/…..es-barrett

    She lied about this Rand Paul. A serious campaign would be cleaning Hillary’s clock.

    1. Yes it would. But the Republicans thought it would be unsporting to crush her, so they handicapped themselves by putting up a nominee that makes Bozo the Clown look like a serious candidate.

  22. Mook and Fallon noted that FBI Director James Comey, in his congressional testimony last month, said, “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”

    Sadly, I think this is a true statement. My guess is that in her private interview with the FBI she was entirely truthful. She told them straight up that she had a private server to avoid FOIA requests and to hide her influence peddling. Then she dared them to do anything about it. She reminded them that anyone who even so much as thought about fucking with her would end up so fucked they’d wish they were dead. Sort of like Clint Eastwood at the end of Unforgiven.

    1. If I was FBI and she said that to me, I think I would interpret that as an attempt to wrest control of my firearm and react accordingly. But I guess that’s why I’m not FBI.

    2. Or she just invoked the Fifth and shut up. Hard to lie when you do that.

  23. She’s a witch I tell ya. A witch! I seen her casting spells!

    1. As you can see here, the troll has completely abandoned the pretense that the “AddictionMyth” and the “dajjal” handles operate independently of each other.

      Please don’t feed the troll, under either of its handles.

    2. I don’t know if she eats babies, but she’s an ethical disaster on wheels.

      No kidding.

      Sometimes the media assassinates people unnecessarily, and sometimes the media takes people who should be put through the wringer and gives them a free pass.

      I rarely see Hillary given much critical press in the mainstream media, and anytime aspersions are directed at her character, the response almost invariably has to do with the magnificent awfulness of Trump.

      It’s as if her behavior is indefensible, so they have to go after Trump.

      The problem with that is that if she’s elected, it isn’t Trump’s apparent awfulness we’ll have to worry about. Hillary’s indefensible behavior will still be indefensible.

      1. When President Hillary does indefensible things in office, will they still deflect questions about her ethics with the observation that Trump is a magnificent bastard?

        Isn’t Inauguration Day the expiration date on that strategy?

        Bill Clinton refuses to promise that he’ll resign from the Clinton Foundation if she’s elected. It’s practically like they’re promising to keep taking money from foreign governments even after Hillary is elected!

        1. GWB still gets blamed for all sorts of stuff

      2. “Vote for my pathetic choice for president because the other choice is even more pathetic” says just about every Clintrumper “supporter”

        NYTimes says that less than 10% of voters actually voted for Clintrump.

        Maybe there’s hope that the 90% will rise up for honesty and civility come November.

  24. I mean, how can anyone tell me that we don’t have a gender issue, that gender has played no role in anything Hillary related, yet it’s 2016 and she is the only really credible presidential candidate that we have ever had.

    I, uh…

    Oh, forget it.

    1. The stupid is strong in that one.

      1. That is the most common thing I hear from the Hillary supporters I know. It is always some variation of “sure she is awful and has done some bad things but she has so much experience and is the only qualified person available”. Their ability to rationalize their idiocy never fails to amaze me.

        1. Is there a pill available to sooth the pain of cognitive dissonance for these people? Sales must be up this year

    2. Gender has absolutely played a role in things Hillary related.

      If she wasn’t a woman, she wouldn’t be Bill’s wife, and we wouldn’t be talking about her as a federal office-holder in any capacity whatsoever.

  25. The point that reason has never made about Hillary and should be making about every day is how horrible DOJ and the FBI are to ordinary people. DOJ has never cut anyone a break or given a defendant the benefit of the doubt ever. If they can’t get the person for the underlying crime, they get them for “lying to investigators”. If the person is smart enough to hire a lawyer and refuses to talk, they do what they did to Conrad Black, put a forfeiture action on all of their assets depriving them of the ability to hire competent legal counsel and them create an indictment so complex and difficult to defend no public defender has a prayer.

    For the FBI and DOJ to now claim that they can’t indict Hillary because she is “just extremely careless but not grossly negligent” is a slap in the face to the entire country. When the FBI comes for you, they are likely going to get you and they certainly are never going to cut you any breaks. That more than anything is what reason and every other American should be angry about.

    1. The danger they’re creating is lawlessness. Why should anyone follow any laws now?

    2. Reason’s failure research and publish the double standard which Hillary coasts on is probably my biggest disappointment with their coverage of this campaign.

      I can get hot takes on twitter memes anywhere. What I can’t get, for the most part, is decent reporting on the Clintons. This article is “news” only because its unusual, when it should be ordinary, daily fare.

      1. It’s appalling really.

        We have the biggest scandal in the last century of presidential politics, but yet it is cast aside as a big nothing.

        Nixon supported a single crime to steal information from political opponents. Then resigned when necessary.

        Hillary supported an ongoing daily crime to hide information from the voters for as yet unknown, but well suspected reasons, allowing untold amounts of classified information to go to our global enemies. And now she blatantly lies about it and obstructs justice to gain herself further power.

        It is beyond belief.

        1. In all honesty, I think the email scandal may be number eight or nine on my list of Hillary’s worst abuses of power.

          To me, the emails aren’t anywhere near as bad as accepting money from foreign governments while the Secretary of State.

          AIR, the email thing became public knowledge as a function of the Benghazi hearings, and I think Hillary leveraging bigotry against Muslims by blaming them for going berserk over some YouTube video is worse than the email thing.

          She and Obama both used bigoted stereotypes about Muslims to deflect blame away from themselves for Benghazi just days before the election in 2012. What she did by scapegoating Muslims is much worse than anything Trump said–especially considering that the good people of Benghazi banded together and chased the militia out of town that was responsible for the attack–and then burned the militia’s headquarters down.

          As Hillary was blaming wild-eyed Muslims for overreacting to a YouTube video, the people of Benghazi, remembering when we saved their asses from being annihilated by Gaddafi, were holding a spontaneous pro-America rally at the time.

          So, yeah, I don’t even think the emails are the worst aspect of the Benghazi fiasco–certainly not just because the email thing was illegal. I don’t know that accepting money from foreign governments while Secretary of State is illegal, but that’s one of the worst things she’s ever done–regardless of whether it’s illegal.

          1. I would agree, except…

            I would still bet that her hacked emails were intel source for whoever planned the Benghazi attack. She was telling people exactly where Stevens was going and staying, what his schedule and security arrangements were – right out in the clear! Then he gets snatched and tortured to death while the consulate and CIA take fire in a well-planned attack. Not a coincidence.

            It all circles back to her being so paranoid about hiding her bribery schemes that she got people killed.

            1. Well, let’s just agree that Hillary’s ethical lapses and criminal behavior are a golden shower of hits.

    3. You want Hillary Clinton handcuffed and dragged to prison… because you are a fan of law and order.

      1. I suspect he doesn’t want Hillary Clinton to be President and get the power of executive orders, the power to pardon, and control of the FBI–because she’s a crook.

        Jail time is beside the point at the moment.

      2. No Tony, I want that because I know that is exactly what would happen to me or you or anyone else if we did even half of the things she has done.

      3. You want Hillary Clinton handcuffed and dragged to prison…

        Actually, walked in of her own free will would be most preferable, even resign her candidacy would be good start.

        The latter obviously being more of a moral matter rather than a sort of law and order issue.

        1. I admit I would like to see Hillary do the perp walk.

        2. “…The latter obviously being more of a moral matter rather than a sort of law and order issue.”

          Which means it is totally irrelevant to her and Tony; moral cripples don’t cane.

      4. What I want is to see that lying grifter and her con-man husband nowhere near a decision-making position in the national government again. They have repeatedly shown that they are in politics for personal gain on a vast scale.

        1. For 25 years, the public has shown a stupifying apathy to this. Why would it begin caring now?

          1. true dat

        2. oooooo Bill loves balloons! Oh man I gotta share it, and upvote it! #VoteHillForBill
          I know nothing of the last 30 years but ya know what? They’re right Hillary Clinton should be in office because I’ve read enough articles on my doctored Facebook newsfeed that told me to!

      5. Far better people have had it happen to them for far less.

      6. Speaking just for myself, I’d far rather see her starve to death on the streets as a pariah.

        -jcr

      7. You want Hillary Clinton handcuffed and dragged to prison… because you are a fan of law and order.

        I really don’t care what happens to her as long as she stays out of politics. For all I care, she and Bill can live a life of luxury on her ill-gotten $120 million fortune until they die. Just stop messing up our lives.

  26. I haven’t seen any coverage at Reason yet of what I thought was the biggest story of the weekend, which was the piece in the Wall Street Journal about how Hillary was using the Clinton Foundation as a conduit for giving military technology to the Russians.

    “The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections”
    Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

    By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan?who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation?recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

    —Wall Street Journal, two days ago.
    (Google the headline!)

    http://tinyurl.com/j8vfz9f

    The money, technology, and resources that the Clinton Foundation brought together for Skolkovo ended up going to Russian military projects–the first military project began in 2011, when they started developing a hypersonic cruise missile engine. Thank God Hillary was in the State Department to help facilitate the Russian reset!

  27. Were all three of MSNBC’s viewers convinced?

  28. “Although what she said was not true, the latest defense goes, she thought it was, so she was truthful.” This describes the classic Clinton word parsing, which is what she was doing when she said on a TV interview that she had always “tried” to tell the truth. Landing under sniper fire, immigrant grandparents that were not immigrants, calling in cattle futures trades that she in fact did not call in, turning over all work-related emails when in fact she (and her team) overlooked at least 7,000 work-related emails, lying under oath about arms sales to Middle Eastern countries, …..lies small, medium, and large.

  29. I just don’t understand anyone that even tries to defend her on this issue. By doing so, they lose all credibility.

  30. Pretty sure this is classic poisoning the well:
    “Obama Calls Trump ‘Unfit’ To Be President; Questions Why Republicans Still Endorsing”
    http://www.npr.org/2016/08/02/…..l-endorsin

    Of course the real issue is whether he is more unfit than that hag, the felon.

    1. If anyone knows what it means to be unfit for office, it’s the teleprompter-in-chief.

      -jcr

  31. “While Clinton may not have been consciously lying in her initial public statements about the email controversy, she was at the very least reckless with the facts, saying things she hoped were true rather than things she knew to be true. ”

    I was raised on a farm. I know horseshit when I run across it.

  32. I i get paid over $86 per hour working from home with 3 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing:==>==> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  33. If Trump has any balls he will call her out in the debates and ask if she was too stupid to know she could receive confidential emails as a SOS or was she lying about it to cover up her ass.

    1. Trump has balls but he lacks the brains, unfortunately.

  34. Yeah, but, but, er, um, Trump is Hitler!!1!

  35. Thank you, Jacob Sullum.

  36. My Husband broke up with me 3 months ago and left me heartbroken, this made me sick and my problem became very very difficult and it made me almost gave up but after the love spell from Robinson Buckler, my relationship was restored instantly, I was happy that the outcome was fantastic, only 3 days after [dr.mac@yahoo.com] started it all. Never in my life have I thought this would work so fast. My man reconcile with me and he started acting completely different, we make love everyday, I feel happy once again, and like never before. It felt so good to have my Husband back again, Thanks to DR MACK???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.