Clinton Admits That It Is “Fair” To Question Her Truthfulness But Then Denies That The FBI Found That Any Of Her Emails Were Classified

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziHillary Clinton admitted this Sunday that it is “fair” for voters to have questions about her truthfulness. However, she then proceeded to make the very type of statement that has undermined her credibility with voters.  Despite the express statement of the FBI that her emails contained clearly classified information, including some with classified markings, Clinton insisted that there was no such finding and seemed to deflect blame for her conduct to subordinates.  The Washington Post gave Clinton “Four Pinnochios” for her interview on truthfulness and the email scandal.  Clearly, Clinton is right that there is “work to do” on the truthfulness thing.

The FBI was scathing in its view of Clinton’s decision to use an unsecure personal server for her communications as Secretary of State — a decision that clearly came from her and not her subordinates who raised objections.  Despite her decision to not to use the expensive, secured system at the State Department, Clinton insisted in her Fox interview that “I take classification seriously.”  She then added that

“I relied on and had every reason to relied on the judgment of the professionals with whom I worked. 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 people who work every single day on behalf of our country.”

That would seem to blame her staff for her use of the personal server.  However, it was the statement on the FBI findings that has caught the attention of many people.  FBI Director Comey called Clinton and her staff “extremely careless” in using a personal email account and server.

When asked about the finding that she sent classified emails, she objected to that take on the FBI findings: “That’s not what I heard Director Comey say. Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people.”  She repeated that the emails found to be classified were “retroactively” classified, which is not true.

However, Comey said that 110 of her emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. He also said that a smaller number emails had markings showing them to be classified.  She added that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful and consistent with what I have told the American people.” However, Comey called her careless in her use of the personal server and the sending of these emails.  He also directly contradicted her on the classification of the emails.

What is astonishing is that, while recognizing “fair” questions about her truthfulness, Clinton proceeded to repeat the very statements that were discredited by the FBI Director and the available record.

In giving her “Four Pinnochios” for her interview, the Post noted that

“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. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements. . . .

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. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.”

Some 57 percent of voters find Clinton to be untruthful according to polls.

127 thoughts on “Clinton Admits That It Is “Fair” To Question Her Truthfulness But Then Denies That The FBI Found That Any Of Her Emails Were Classified”

  1. There’s a lot to read here, but I must admit I skimmed the last half. When an employee enters State Department (and probably other Departments) they attend briefings about correct procedures of security designation (Classified, Top Secret, Top Secret for ______’s Eyes Only).,There are probably more, but these type designations (I made up actual titles, but these are samples that could be used in this comment), but the different designations are the point. The originator should classify the document, or a higher level might change document designation. Unclassified documents might,(and should) be changed by a higher-level employee if it actually has classified material. Changing the designation by a future reader is that reader’s responsibility. Clinton may not have done this. Reading a document that has classified information makes it Classified, whether or not there has been a designation. Clinton’s assumption that a document without a designation was unclassified. But material in it does require a designation and should have been given that designation. It would be her responsibility to add or correct the designation. From Comey’s testimony that was often the case for the Secretary. She read documents that should have had a security designation without correcting the designation as she should have.

  2. sqeeck

    good point re zero wage growth, but like any other author he can’t cover everything – it would have been a multi volume tome =)

    mucho gracias for the article!!

  3. @Autumn

    I put the Thomas Frank video on while I was cleaning the kitchen. I don’t know how he can discuss no zero-wage growth and not mention millions of illegals helping to depress wages??? Some of what he said was OK, and there was an article by Galbraith(?) several years ago, before 2012, about Obama’s Original Sin. Here let me google it:

    Frank Rich??? Let me try again. Hmmm. Galbraith called it that, too!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, I would love to hear the mp3 up if you get your father or uncle to sing it!

  5. @sqeek, @jill

    of possible interest – Ben Jealous, former NAACP leader debates Jill Stein. Ben has fallen line, but we sure haven’t!

  6. If HRC told the truth, that she didn’t send or receive classified emails, and the only email she used while SOS was her personal, private email server, then we will have to believe that in her entire tenure as SOS she never handled classified information, ever. How is that even remotely possible???

    1. Foxtrot – we do know that no one at the State Dept has been able to name an positive accomplishment of Hillary during her time at State. She got 30,000 personal emails which is 7500 emails a year or 144 personal emails a week that had to be dealt with. We are not including spam here. And she didn’t have a computer so everything was done on her Blackberry.

  7. @squeek

    so a little box popped up and said that I was posting too quickly. Have you ever gotten that? What can I say? It’s too hot to go out so I am having a great time right here on my laptop =)

    You watch FOX? I watch and DemocracyNow as well as my Progressive peeps.

    Thanks for the book tip – I will add it to my reading list. Firmly believe in reading all POVs.

    Currently (still!) reading Thomas Frank’s book “Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?” – outstanding analysis of how the Demoncrats betrayed working class people. As good as his analysis of the Repuglican Party “What’s Wrong with Kansas” He believes the demise of the party – when it began to favor elitists began with bill Clinton.

  8. You know what this reminds me of?

    There was this gas lighting movie that had this one scene where the wife walked in and found her lying, cheating husband in the act with another woman. She’s walking through the house wailing, while the husband boots the mistress out the window, puts on his robe, gets the paper, and sits in a chair. He raises his eyebrows at his wife and calmly asks what she’s going on about? In outrage, she tells him she caught him red handed cheating on her. He claims she imagined the whole thing. He’s been just sitting there reading the paper when she got hysterical for no reason. He just stuck with that lie until his poor wife began questioning her own memory.

    I think that is Clinton’s strategy. She’s been caught lying so many times, even perjured herself in the Travel Gate scandal, and nothing ever happens to her. No consequences. The voters just love her. So we’ve taught her to do this. Just lie and lie, no matter how obvious or outrageous, and there will be those of us who fall victim to gas lighting, doubt our own eyes and ears, and figure she’s just a good, honest woman victim to a vast right wing conspiracy.

  9. @Autumn

    No, I have not read it. Sooo, I just order it! Less than $5! I did get my copy in of Alien Powers, The Pure Theory of Ideology by Kenneth Minoque. This is a blurb from it:

    “Have I really been in a battle?” wondered Stendhal’s hero after many hours blundering around the field of Waterloo, and many people today share a similar perplexity. Like Stendhal’s hero, they eat and drink and sustain the business of life, but the meaning of it all depends upon their conviction of contributing to the liberation of workers, women, the colonized, or other varieties of the oppressed. Like Fabrizio del Dongo, they find a regiment and tag along—the Hussars against Patriarchy, the Dragoon Guards of the Proletariat, and so on. Quite where the real battle lies is hotly disputed, but its significance is agreed to be a final end to oppression.

    For these are people who believe that the term “oppression” is not merely a useful component of our rhetoric of grievances, but reveals the systematic character of how we live. As a typical formulation has it, plucked at random from a vast literature, “So long as some groups in society dominate others, the problem of conflict between persons and groups will remain.”[1] Or again: “Only a planet freed from class division and imperial exploitation, in which liberty and equality were common international realities, could be a peaceful environment for the human race.”[2] The lived texture of an ideological life, then, is to be found in the endeavors of millions to improve the world. There can be no doubt that this experience has been central to the last century and more.

    My concern, however, is not with this lived experience but with what I identify as its central idea. The idea is so abstract that it is less a doctrine than a machine for generating doctrines, and its simplest formulation is that all evils are caused by an oppressive system. One of its more important corollaries is that truth is a weapon. This is the pure theory of ideology, and my aim is to explore its logical and rhetorical character.

    I do not think it will be an easy read, and I will probably have to turn FOXNews off while I read it.

    My copy of Edna, The Whip Lady, also came in.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. If we are to preserve even a shred of our Democracy we need a debate between ALL presidential candidates.

    Remember Nader was denied participation in the debates in 2000.

    Corporations feared Nader.

    Corporations fear Jill Stein.

    They do not fear Gary Johnson as he is pro-TPP

    Please consider signing this petition and getting it out to your peeps!! We cannot allow HRC to steal the election!

  11. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, I should have mentioned it the other day, but I too thought your song about Bernie was exceptional!

  12. @Jill

    Can we PLEASE get Putin to have the FSB release ALL of her emails to the American public??? Maybe start a petition?

  13. @squeek

    great work as always. I read “The Bad Seed” years ago and it terrified me – that there are people like that. Those Columbine killers, etc. Have you read “We need to Talk About Kevin” by Lional Shriver? – it was chilling but excellent. Did NOT see the movie.

    I think you nailed it: HRC = BAD SEED

  14. Autumn,

    Obama is trying to influence the election. Evidently he has out-Putined Putin!!!

Comments are closed.