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. @PatricParamedic

    Excellent post on the emails. We all know she deleted those 30K emails to avoid FOIA.

    But even FOIA does not apply to Crooked Hillary.

    Obama has put her emails regarding the the TPP on ice. They will not be released until after the election! The Demoncrats are thoroughly corrupt – how much more evidence do people need??

  2. Slohrss29, I’m no expert either, but I believe the distinction is that unlike Hillary, others used commercial services to send email meaning they could not delete back-ups or do end-runs around FOIA requests and the like.with such ease never mind such breath taking impunity. Also, Snowden aside, the subject of digital security and its importance has been growing by leaps and bounds (largely because of cyber attacks on foreign Sovereign States by the Obama administration, such as Stuxnet loosed on Iran) so respecting the rules regarding digital communication within the administration has taken on increased importance with each successive term almost diametrically. Unlike Powell and the others, if Hillary were not such a darling of Wall Street and tptb, she would be in jail right now.

  3. BB, I don’t know exactly what to make of it besides it being curious. From what I can tell, most politicians take their marching orders from people further up the chain of command!

    I saw that Hudson article and there is one by Ann Garrison in Counterpunch today. Both make strong points that need to be heard by “liberals”.

  4. Thanks Paul, it seemed to me that whole Powell thing had a relatively simple, and pretty much, nonpolitical conclusion.

  5. Well BB, the people I talk to echo your statement. Basically, it’s “well… we really don’t like this guy, he is loud and has really bad hair, but at least he is going to try to slay the dragon.” My thought is if Clinton goes down in flames and the smell of blood is out, the crowd may demand more blood lust, so it will be a tough time for whomever manages to climb to the top of the heap. Sometimes you reap what you sew… I would type something Frenchy here since it kind of feels that way, but I can’t remember any of it anymore.

  6. Jill,

    No, I was unaware of the trademark. Quite interesting! In other words, Trump planned his run well in advance?

    It is very difficult to get any handle on Trump since the MSM (where one used to be able to at least infer a sort of outer contour of a personality in a given situation) has gone off the McCarthy deep end so perversely that not a single thing they say about Trump has any meaning other than “Be Afraid”. Also, notice how whenever anyone talks about Trump, it is de rigeur to preface their remarks with general patronizing disparagement? So, for example, “Trump is a buffoon, but at least he is consistently (for him) against the evil trade deals.” True, he invites a lot of it, (See, I do it is much as the next guy) but it has become so formulaic that I believe we are missing a lot of what’s going on.

    Michael Hudson seems able to pluck apart the threads and give “the Donald” a bit of his due in this scathing article about Hillary.

  7. I am not sure, but I would have to say there is a question of intent. I am not an expert, and do not even remember all the details of Powell’s email scandal. It is plain to anyone that if a person chose against a convenient email service (if I remember, Powell basically should have just used more discretion in the information he sent via the email service, and probably simply forgot to change it in his phone) to have a privately managed system in their home for the intent to contain sensitive matters of state, it was done to hide and control that information. Spinners can have at is as they will, but there is no other reason for it and that item needs to be remembered. You don’t set up a home email server system to have your family send you a list of items needed from the grocery store.

    1. Powell’s system was set up by the State Depts IT people. They knew about it in advance.

  8. “The first is that Clinton is the first and, to date, only secretary of state to exclusively use a private email address and server to conduct her business as the nation’s top diplomat. All of the other names above maintained both a private and a government-issued email address. That alone doesn’t make her guilty. But it does make her unique.”

    “Second, Clinton is the only one of that group who is currently (a) running for president and (b) the very likely nominee for one of the country’s two major parties.”

  9. To PatricParamedic –
    You said “Powell, a regular email user, serves as a useful comparison. Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. The major difference? Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.” So if he used GMail or AOL or whatever, why is a private server worse? I thought the underlying issue was “security” of the emails. Are you claiming that commercial email providers cannot be hacked and haven’t been hacked? And that Clinton’s server absolutely HAS been hacked? For that matter, how do we know that official Government servers haven’t been hacked? (Russia or China, are you listening?) What evidence is there?
    It seems to me that these days, any electronic conversation is vulnerable to eavesdropping, and that government officials will have to communicate by writing everything down on paper with disappearing ink. And I’m not even sure about that.

  10. Re the comment above that “Only 9 percent chose to vote for these two,” one of our national disgraces is that so few people vote. Invariably, elections are decided by the angriest among us. I’m not sure that’s the best way to run a railroad, to say nothing of a country.

    I wish that election day were a national holiday, or maybe held on a Sunday. With stores closed and sporting events postponed. Or perhaps give everybody a $250 tax credit for voting.

  11. PhillyT said:

    “John Kerry is the FIRST Secretary of State to use a government email account. That includes Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, and Warren Christopher. Mrs. Clinton exercised bad judgement. We all get it. What else have you got?”

    What ELSE (have we) got? Well, for those not drinking the Klinton Kool Aid, we’ve got all these niggling little facts:

    Albright did NOT use email while she was in office from 1997 to 2001. Rice, (2005-09) almost never used her email account. So you can “delete” those 2.

    Powell, a regular email user, serves as a useful comparison. Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. The major difference? Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not.

    Many, many politicians have used private addresses. How many own private servers like the one Clinton used?

    Which of her predecessors deleted 30,000 emails?

    You can delete emails. You can’t delete facts.

    Even though you really want to.

    1. In addition the standards were different during the years of Clinton’s predecessors – IT security standards are an evolving product.

      HRC’s predecessors did not withhold a major portion of their work product – literally for years.

      HRC’s predecessors did not mingle their work product with their personal email and then claim that they alone have the right to separate personal and work items – then destroy what they did not turn over to DOS.

      HRC’s predecessors did not remove and mishandle classified material from official protection.

      Does anyone seriously claim that anyone less than an administration official at the highest level would have escaped prosecution? I don’t think so.

  12. BB,

    Did you know Trump had trademarked the phrase: “Make America Greater” back in 2012?

  13. @Brooklin

    I have heard that chatter about Trump as well. And as he consistently puts his foot in his mouth it does seem plausible that he is running against HRC to sheepdog us over. But now that he has attracted such wide support he’s in a bind.

    IF he does become president I firmly believe that he will go after HRC and the Clinton Foundation as well. Trump holds grudges and never forgets his enemies.

    Exhausting all this – I am focusing on Jill Stein – her donations and support is increasing and Progressive chatter is saying Senator Nina Turner may leave the Demoncrat party and run with Jill. “Ebony and Ivory”

  14. Autumn, I have wondered if Trump would indeed put HIllary behind bars. What are your thoughts on the possibility that Trump is dong this for Hillary’s benefit? The idea has struck me as perfectly plausible, then not so much, and then plausible again. They were previously friends of a sort in a past life of mutual corruption and excess.

    A slight variation is that Trump started out being the boogy man specifically for Hillary (lord knows it needs more powerful medicine each time round – Palin would pale at the task this time) and then – like a dog chasing a car – got caught up in the whole thing and now that he caught the car (at least the nomination) is having a hell of a time untangling himself from the mess – with no help at all from the MSM and Hillary ready to use him to start WWIII.

  15. @squeek

    re: “You just need to get real, and face your party’s demons! And your own.”

    Still trying to practice Jungian analysis/CBT I see. Useless in the case of SWM.

    What she needs is aversion therapy – lock her in a closet with HRC for a day. That’ll bring her around!

  16. @Jill

    The MSM is finished – no sane person takes them seriously. I skim the headlines just to see what they are on about. Still pushing Crooked Hillary and Corrupt Kaine of course. And trying to label Trump as a racist, Putin tool and a rapist. They have more of a dilemma with Jill Stein – they don’t want to give her coverage yet they realize that Bernieorbusters are flocking over to vote for her. So the line of attack on her is that she is a nutty anti-vaxxer.


  17. @SWM

    You might want to un-rest your case! Here is something from last year, where YES, Marco Rubio was accused of racism!

    Marco Rubio’s Coded Racism Still Can’t Budge Trump in Presidential Polls
    Was Marco Rubio’s Trump-fueled attack on President Obama an appeal to racism? The short answer is yes, but it was a really bad one.

    Now, there are some people who have a knee-jerk aversion to the r-word, unless there’s a burning cross made of n-words to back it up, so before we proceed, let’s put Rubio’s statement to the RAF™ Test. The attack itself, “no class,” is a popular variation on the “know your place” variety of racism, and is a companion to the “uppity” attack. When you’re uppity, you don’t know your place, and when you have no class, you don’t know how to act while you’re being uppity and not knowing your place. Think “ghetto,” an attack that has been lobbed at President and Mrs. Obama by many conservatives, and others.

    As any good racist who doesn’t think he’s a racist (which is all of them) will tell you, though, it isn’t racist if it’s true. Simply calling a black president classless isn’t necessarily racist, since a president of any color obviously has the potential to be classy or not. However, if you’re going to make a criticism that is also a popular racial attack, the burden of proof is on you to prove that what you’re saying is actually true, and not just an appeal to racists who hate Obama, yet just can’t seem to say why. You can’t just point to President Obama giving commands in the Situation Room and accuse him of yelling at the movie screen.

    You just need to get real, and face your party’s demons! And your own. To you, not being a Democrat is racissst Because Liberals and Democrats are race-baiters. It’s what you do! You guys even call black Republicans “racist”. Oh, and since you will deny that, let me give you a link to that also:

    Black Republican actress’ racist remarks hurt GOP

    I think for liberals that maybe the only time blacks can even be racist, is when they are Republicans. I think them’s the rules???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.