It’s often said the way you tell if Hillary Clinton is lying is that her lips are moving. And yet, it’s rare that our nation’s Fourth Estate even bothers to call her out. I suppose to be fair, you could say Hillary’s lying is no longer even newsworthy, as it’s just a daily occurrence, now expected — and, sadly, accepted — by a significant swath of the American public.So it’s actually news when a member of the mainstream media calls her out for one of her blatant lies. The Washington Post did just that after Hillary’s hell-freezes-over appearances yesterday on Fox News — not only calling her out, but awarding the Queen Four Pinocchios, its highest rating. As WaPo describes it, the Four Pinocchios rating is reserved for downright “whoppers.”
Via The Washington Post:
“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
—Hillary Clinton, interview on “Fox News Sunday,” July 31, 2016
As Wallace put it, “After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.”
After Clinton denied that, Wallace played another video of an exchange between Comey and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi:
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material emailed.
Read WaPo’s detailed explanation of its Four Pinocchio ratings for this Hillary statement here.The Pinocchio Test
As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions.
You might say it’s along the lines of saying it depends on what the definition of “is” is. Another way of saying she “relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions” is, simply, she lied.
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.
In other words, she lied.
It’s bad enough that Hillary Clinton lies with such frequency about such critical issues, but what’s worse is the incredible disdain and condescension she shows to the American people by supposing we’re buying it. Even elementary school kids asked who Hillary Clinton is immediately respond with, “she’s a liar.” So what chance do our kids have to learn and value ethics when such a congenital and well-known liar is a viable candidate for president?
Meanwhile, Hillary’s campaign is acknowledging she needs to work on the her trust issue. Someone might want to clue her into the fact that continuing to lie ain’t gonna help.
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]