Sometimes I think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a contest to see who can lie the most ways about the most things in the least amount of time.
If so, the competition is fierce.
Excerpted from this morning’s article at foxnews.com*:
A State Department spokeswoman said Friday that the department did not start automatically archiving emails from senior officials until February of this year — raising questions about Hillary Clinton’s claim that her emails were “immediately” saved whenever she corresponded with colleagues.
The former secretary of state made that assertion during her press conference earlier this week — and in a lengthy statement put out by her office — as she defended her exclusive use of personal email. Clinton downplayed concerns that official emails could have been lost by suggesting anytime she emailed anyone with a “.gov” address, that email would be stored for posterity.
“The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department,” she said Tuesday.
But department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made clear on Friday that this was not the way the system worked.
She said the department only started automatically archiving emails for other senior officials in February.
In fairness to Ms. Clinton, it is possible she did not know whether or not her “work emails”, as she calls them, were captured and preserved. But, even so, that raises the question of why she would not have checked to be sure before deleting them. It also raises the issue of whether it is credible that – Ms. Clinton aside – no one else on her entire staff was aware of this.
Do you believe her? Have her pronouncements throughout this email scandal given you any reason to?
The email scandal continues to deepen and darken. Not just because she might have deleted emails which brought her performance as Secretary Of State into question – particularly regarding Benghazi – and not just because emails with classified information might have been hacked from a less secure non-government account. But because this brings everything people accuse Clinton of – arrogance, deceit, setting her own rules that are different from the rest of the world’s – right back to the front of the line.
How will this play out? No one knows for sure. But keep an eye on the big-time Democrat donors and see if they’re jumping in with both feet. If they are holding back – maybe waiting/hoping for a different candidate to emerge, that would be a pretty ominous sign that, like in 2008, the inevitability of Hillary Clinton might be more than a little “evitable”.
=======================================================
*Note to the readers, and I know for a fact there are some, who immediately tune out when Fox news is being referenced: This story is also page one news in today’s New York Times. Absent Hillary Clinton knocking on your door and admitting it to your face, this is the best I can do for you.
