What did Hillary Clinton say? She may have “short circuited” or her and her interviewer might have been “talking past each other?”
No matter what I might think are the good points about Mrs. Clinton I have to resign myself that both her and her husband are not ones to give straight answers. With Bill it was questioning what the meaning of “is” is to wiggle out of any guilt that might come his way via a legal deposition.
With Mrs. Clinton it is saying she never knowingly received or sent any classified emails or that she turned over each and every one of those emails requested by investigators when it appears such may not be so. But caught in an apparent case of being not totally candid (lying?) she says she may have “short circuited”. Just what the hell that means I have not a clue.
You see, the problem is one has to go back and read or listen to everything she might have said and see what she is referring to specifically point by point and see how she might be using some phrase or parsing of words to keep from admitting something she would rather not.
I wish she would just come clean and say something like: “I have already admitted I made a mistake using my own non-secure private server to commingle public and private business. I am not aware that any actual classified material was compromised or that any material that may have been considered classified, was clearly marked as such — the FBI director himself said some of the material might not have been clearly marked. Government agencies often over classify, so if something was not marked as such, one might not know. I am from a generation who came up before computers and I am not the only one in government dealing with a steep learning curve. I have learned my lesson. I have been thoroughly investigated and was not prosecuted because it was found there was no intentional wrong doing on the part of me or my staff — let’s move on.”
Of course that does not end Mrs. Clinton’s email headache. Due to legitimate investigation and hacking new emails have come to light that indicate special favors were given to or considered for donors to the Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. On that she can only maintain that no special favors were ever given — the fact that everyone knows that money buys access and the legality is always murky being understood.
I don’t blame her for not wanting to talk about these issues, it never helps her case, but when she can’t escape it, she ought to resort to the truth rather than another lie, which seems to be her default position.
When at first we practice to deceive, oh but what a tangled web we weave