Clinton Offers New Explanation For Email Scandal

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziI was on NPR yesterday on the Diane Rehm Show to discuss the Clinton email scandal. Appearing on the show was Brian Fallon, spokesperson for Hillary Clinton, who offered a new and rather implausible spin on the worsening scandal. Fallon said that Clinton was relying on her knowledge that Colin Powell used a personal email account as the reason that she thought her server was approved.

AAEAAQAAAAAAAAcfAAAAJDIxZmEyYTY4LTgxYTUtNGJlZi1hNzgzLTJhYWJmYTQzOTkxNQHere is what Fallon said in response to questions from Rehm:

I think that, as she has sought to explain in the multitude of interviews she’s done in the last few days since the report has come out, there was — and this is backed up in the IG report — one of her predecessors, Secretary Powell, had used personal email exclusively.And so she felt that in setting up her arrangement, that since his was approved, that hers was similar enough that it would be approved, too.

As I noted at the time, this is a new explanation. After the report said uncategorically that Clinton never asked for approval and would never have received approval for her unsecure personal server, she has switched from claiming that her server was “allowed” to she “believed it was allowed.”

First, this does not square with repeated concerns raised by security staff that were dismissed by Clinton aides. Second, it does not square with policies signed by Clinton herself telling people not to use personal email for State Department business. Finally, it does not square with the fact that Clinton resisted accepting a secure cellphone and was repeatedly seen using her Blackberry on the seventh floor of the State Department, a secure area (a major breach of security).

However, the biggest problem is that the new spin suggested that Clinton knew that Powell had used personal email years before her tenure. That seems highly dubious. Indeed, Clinton only started discussing the Powell emails after a disclosure from the State department that it found two classified emails had been sent by Powell (emails retroactively identified as classified). Now the campaign is claiming that Clinton knew the details of Powell’s email system (in the early days of email use) and was relying on that knowledge.

Of course, this is precisely the type of new information that the State Department was seeking in its investigation. Clinton repeatedly assured the public that “I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, any time. I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. Any time you want to talk to me, here I am.” That was untrue, as we now know. What is most striking is that the State Department was trying to get to the bottom of a potentially serious national security breach. Yet, Clinton has refused (and her top aides refused) to answer questions.

Fallon address this in our discussion with an equally implausible spin: ” our campaign feels that this issue has been well litigated and fully aired in the press over the last year so that there’s probably no such thing at this point, as a low information voter, when it comes to factoring in her email use.” Yet, Clinton has been refusing to discuss the email beyond the same few lines insisting that it was approved and allowed by the State Department — which is now known to be untrue. She further insisted that she would answer all questions by investigators, which is also untrue. The State Department was trying to find out the scope of the breach of security and the violation of procedures — questions needed to safeguard national security. Clinton refused to help them. Thus, this suggestion that she relied on her knowledge of the email system used by Powell was never given to the State Department and never subjected to scrutiny.

Hilllary_Rosen_testifies_on_NapsterThe interview also featured media consultant and Clinton supporter Hillary Rosen who offered a rather odd justification that Clinton cannot be faulted for failing to comply with federal rules and Department guideline due to such countervailing priorities as wedding planning:

“It’s a pain to go through and change everything over. And I think, from her perspective, she was planning a wedding and she was going through, you know, family issues and the like. And she thought, well, why am I going to subject all of that to State Department scrutiny? I’m just going to send everything that’s important to my staff and it will be archived that way.”

As you might image, wedding planning is not a recognized exception to either classification rules or the Federal Records Act.

In another rather curious moment, Rosen insisted that “I do not think that she has a trust problem that has dogged her.” When I noted that Clinton has record lows for trustworthiness, I was asked to give examples of where she has changed her position. I noted her change on same-sex marriage and trade deals. The response from Rosen was outrage: “Because I’m a lesbian and how dare you.” What is odd is that Rosen then immediately recognized that Clinton had changed her position but insisted “You know, if every politician who took a position 20 years ago stuck with that position, we would not have any equality today.” Of course, many of us long supported same-sex marriage when politicians like Clinton insisted that such marriages could not be allowed on moral grounds. (Indeed, Clinton herself acknowledged that she took too long to change her position . . . at least in a comedy sketch).  However, it appears that even mentioning that Clinton changed her position is now deemed as offensive.

None of this means that Clinton should be or will be criminally charged — or her aides charged. However, what is clear (in my view) is that her past statements were demonstrably untrue. Moreover, her refusal to cooperate with the State Department investigation placed political and personal interests over the interests of national security. These are questions that need to be fully answered and should have been answered without delay. Yet, the Clinton campaign continues to spin the facts and create new layers of implausible defenses.

61 thoughts on “Clinton Offers New Explanation For Email Scandal”

  1. The Canadian has a committed socialist running and he supports a lying, corrupt, sack o’ feces Wall St puppet. He should go all in w/ Bernie but he’s too scared. And, if elected, I am certain Bernie would not push and elbow women who disagree w/ him like the stupid, pretty boy, French Canadian PM.

  2. Clinton made sure there was no Inspector General appointed to the State Dept. during her tenure there. This is a salient point the lapdog MSM never mention. last year, I think on Meet The Press, Powell gave a forthright explanation on his use of personal email. Briefly, the State Dept. was way behind the times when it came to computers. Coming from the military, Powell was shocked @ the poor system. He implemented steps to bring the State Dept. computers up to speed. He and staff were allowed to use personal email for mundane communication, like scheduling meetings, birthday, retirement parties, etc.

  3. Isaacwiththelongname, Hillary will be the subject of impeachment proceedings from DAY ONE of her administration. Anyone who thinks the only politician the Republicans hate more than Obama will get to put any ink on legislative paper is not connected to the real world. The Republicans will dust off all the Whitewater Draft Indictments and go from there. Also, I wonder how forthcoming the security services will be with intel to her now that she’s shown all her docs to every major and minor power on Earth?

    On the other hand, Trump is a disaster unfolding before our very eyes.

    Jill Stein looks better every day. I’d vote for Johnson, who seems like a nice enough fellow, except Libertarians should scare the hell out of everyone. All teenage boys should be forbidden from reading anything from Ayn Rand. Let them read “Atlas Shrugged” when they are 70….

  4. Tom: Hillary will be BBQing kittens in her backyard this weekend. You’re invited.

  5. Elton, Hillary isn’t ugly on the OUTSIDE. The problem with politicians is most of them rot from the inside out. President Johnson to the contrary notwithstanding.

  6. I do not understand the focus on the email thing when the key thing about her is that she is ugly and we don’t need some ugly face on the tv screen 24/7 when we would rather look at someone as dorky as Romney. We do not need a woman president. Let us focus on the true nature of the beast.

  7. Chaos is an inevitability. I’ll go with the candidate that has yet to prove their fidelity to our rule of law rather than the other who has proven complete contempt for it.

  8. And yet, when the Bush White house lost 22 million emails during their tenure, you people didn’t say anything.

    1. emw – that is a guess on the number of emails and covers almost 100 senior employees. Also the account was run by the RNC.

  9. Olly

    The difference is there measured in degrees. They are all scum with enormous egos. That’s the American way. Put Trump side by side with Clinton and she comes off like a choir girl. As unfortunate as it may be, it is a question of the lesser of two evils. At this time Clinton is the safest bet. This country already went back a generation with the three stooges. Ask yourself how much further in arrears the US would be after four years of Trump.

    Bernie, ideally, would be the best bet but the deck seems stacked against the house cleaning he would do. How do you get rid of money in politics when every politician, Democrat as well as Republican is bought and paid for? Who will be the first to run on integrity? Americans don’t seem to have an eye or an ear for integrity. Take a moment to reflect on the depth of the average Trump-supporter rapport and you will see that it is as well thought out as a sideshow barker and a hapless fair goer.

    There is one possible scenario. Clinton gets in but in order to stay for two terms has to perform some major initiatives: single payer health care insurance with a dual tier system, limits of $100 per person for campaign contributions, and absolute transparency regarding lobbyists. If politicians were unable to hide anything and were forced to promote themselves through the issues, we might get somewhere. As it is the system in the US is simply shameful and disgusting. Trump is chaos. Sanders doesn’t have a chance. Clinton is a major sleaze ball but represents the stability necessary to make changes.

    Four years of a circus under Trump is not what America needs. Trump and Clinton are both sleaze balls but Trump is chaos on top of sleaze.

  10. ” a large percentage of them will vote for an indicted national security threat or reality show host. WTF!!!”

    The reality show host, hosts a show whose primary goal, is to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for charity. He also runs a fortune 100 company worth billions. He is a blue collar billionaire but a generous one.

    On the other hand, the indictment of the democrats candidate won’t happen until after the parties conventions this month. She is a white collar lying thief who takes money for favors and hides her dealings from the public and never donated to charities.

    Let’s get that straight. 🙂

  11. The difference Isaac is politicians used to try to hide their lying and corrupt practices. Republicans are still held to account by the MSM (to some degree) but Democrats don’t even bother hiding it. They’ll just go all Jedi mind-trick and tell anyone paying attention, including the media, what “they” believe to be true is false. And then proceed to give them a new “truth” to chase for awhile. Hard-core supporters aren’t swayed by these candidate’s character. Our “lowest-common-denominator doesn’t appear to have a bottom.

  12. Tom and patti,

    It would be more concise to list all the times she has told the truth.
    Heck, she’s even lied about her first name.

    “The first lady said her mother had read about the famous climber and knew his name had two L’s.
    “So when I was born, she called me Hillary and she always told me, ‘It’s because of Sir Edmund Hillary,'” Hillary Clinton reported.”

    Snopes verdict: False.

    It’s best to assume that every word she says is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

  13. patti, search for Clinton Travel Office, FBI files given to WH illegally (WH requested files of opponents, Hillary’s cattle futures $$$, Mark Richman pardon. Then watch lie to the American people about Bill getting sex acts performed by an intern (in corporate America he would be fired ). He lost his law license and banned from the Supreme Court after impeachment. Hillary stood next to him when he declared “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky ….”! Then a blue dress with semen on it, DNA proved Bill Clinton.

    There’s more, look it up.

  14. As I listened to DR press you for EXAMPLES of HRS’s untrustworthiness and your repeated responses in broad “back when she and Bill” generalities, I became more and more angry. Do you have any examples?

  15. This election is going to be as ugly as any election can get. The difference is truth. The uproar about $6Million for Veterans? What fun to see information handed out instead of a stonewall. I’m not sure where the money went is anyone’s business. Now the charities will be hounded by the media about where their donation went. Apparently, pledges were made. Were donations a tax deduction? Lots of paperwork to get that approved. How many man hours were spent collecting donations? Then acknowledging them with a tax-deductible receipt. Man hours cost money for an employer. Trump forwarded all dollars received to charities. You would think Trump had a personal server in the basement!

    I wish I had a piece of that reality show. It made millions.

  16. Even if she could have us believe she had known Colin Powell had used personal email when she assumed the office, she still should have sought permission for herself whether she thought Powell had permission or not.

  17. So, here’s a politician, pompous, and placing herself above rules. So, what else is new. There probably is not one politician who does not place themselves above rules, does not consider themselves important enough to do what they want when they want, etc. She got caught and she is weaseling no differently than any other politician.

    There is something anal about the mindset of those in opposition to the choice for President other than Trump. The problem is not with Clinton or Trump. The problem is with the supply of decency in the political ranks of the American system. Clinton and Trump are just distractions. The system is the laughing stock of the world’s democracies. Aye, there’s the rub.


    On ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” on Tuesday, Mr. Hawking, a theoretical physicist and best-selling author, acknowledged a mystery that he has found impenetrable.

    Asked to explain the political ascendance of Donald J. Trump, he said simply, “I can’t.”

    “He is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator,” he said in prerecorded remarks.


    Turley would be more useful focusing on the size of the lowest common denominator. From the looks of this blog it is way, way to large. The response of the majority of those that visit this blog will inevitably be the same as the response regarding global warming. So sad.

  18. Wow, you mean Hillary Clinton actually lied? I’m stunned, flabbergasted, nonplussed, and shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

  19. The Clintons & many among the Demo/Repub leadership should already be up on Treason charges!

    Alex Jones and his radio/TV shows, & it’s sister site have been doing a great job of covering much of this important news that’s being covered up by the dying old media.

    Please watch this video below & you can hear it for yourself. This is Huuuge news, more proof Obama, Demo/Repub leadership is giving weapons to muslim terrorist, including stinger missiles.

    alex jones, CIA veteran Robert Tosh Plumlee, and retired USMC veteran Matthew Smith-Meck

    The interview starts at about 5 minutes in.

Comments are closed.