Yesterday on Meet the Press Madam Hillary answered questions put to her by Chuck Todd about her private email arrangement as Secretary of State. The video is below (12 minutes, transcript here, NBC News story here). Todd didn’t ask her a single question about the classified information that passed through her insecure account. Rather, he sought her reassurance to Democrats that the “drip, drip, drip” would come to an end. Hey, she wants it to end too, so they can agree on that.
Steve posted the “Hillary vs. Hillary” compilation that Todd had prepared for her. She can’t have been thrilled with that, but Todd was not tough on her in any respect. Even so, she had to parse and prevaricate up a storm to get through the interview. She’s had a lot of practice and she performed with the ease of a pathological liar.
I offer this one small example. At the top of the interview, she says: “[A]s I have said very often, all of the emails that I sent were intended to be in the government systems if they were work related. That’s why I sent them to people at their work addresses. And, you know, the vast majority of them ended up there.” One would think, however, that she must have sent work-related emails to people outside “the government systems.” We have the known case of Sid “Vicious” Blumenthal, but there are undoubtedly many others. This must be why she refers to “the vast majority” of her sent emails ending up “in the government systems.” Well, thanks.
If you can stand to watch the video, you can test your acuity by identifying the scapegoats Madam Hillary has lined up to sacrifice in case of any “drip, drip, drip” to come. Twitchy helps out with a collection of comments here.
UPDATE: Shannen Coffin observes: “Hillary now blames her lawyers.” The URL suggests to me that either Shannen or someone at NR wanted to title this piece “Hillary lies, lies, more lies,” which covers a lot of Clinton territory.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.