The case of Patrick Kennedy

There is a whole lot of lyin’ goin’ on in the matter of Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy and the quid pro quo discussed in the latest batch of FBI 302s released in the Clinton email investigation, such as it was. The lyin’ makes it difficult to see through fog. At the Weekly Standard, Steve Hayes lucidly explains it all and concludes with a glimpse of the Liar-in-Chief speaking yesterday:

When President Obama was asked Tuesday about the “appearance of impropriety” revealed in the FBI interview summaries, he dismissed the concerns in a manner that was slightly more sophisticated but no less dishonest than the others spinning the controversy.

“With respect to the State Department and the FBI reports, I think you’ve heard directly from both the FBI and the State Department that the notion or the accounts that have been put out there are just not true,” Obama said, failing to identify the “notion” or “accounts” he was seeking to discredit. “And you can question them again, but based on what we have seen, heard, learned, some of the more sensational implications or appearances, as you stated them, aren’t based on actual events and based on what actually happened, and I think derive from sort of overly broad characterizations of interactions between the State Department and the FBI that happen a lot and happen between agencies.”

In a word: No.

Borrowing a prominent feature of the 302s released for public consumption, Steve concisely comments: “And that’s [redacted].”

UPDATE: Andy McCarthy has much more on this story in this NRO column.