१८ जानेवारी, २०१६
Watch the long pause and the repeated, slow head shaking from Hillary Clinton when she's asked if the FBI has interviewed her.
The pause after the question is so long and the head shaking is so extensive — continuing even as Tapper moves on to thanking her for doing the show — that I felt sure she was lying. I thought the interesting question was not whether she was lying but how it felt — inside her head — from 0:08 to 0:10.5 as she decided a straight, one-word lie was the best approach. She must have calculated the risks and made a rough stab at how — if the fact of an interview ever comes out — she would do a depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is explanation.
Tapper's question was "In terms of the status of the FBI investigation into your private e- mail server, have you been interviewed by the FBI yet?" I snarked: "It depends on what the meaning of 'interview' is." And: "It depends on what the meaning of 'yet' is."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९४ टिप्पण्या:
It kills me to say this but, some of the pause may be due to delay.
I think that she was simply in disbelief that he had dared to ask that question.
"It kills me to say this but, some of the pause may be due to delay."
Maybe, but there is a subtle acknowledgement nod as she registers the question. That would indicate there is no delay.
Actually, the ambiguity of the question itself is reason enough alone to say "No" and still be accurate. He asked, "In terms of the status of the FBI investigation" had she been interviewed. Well, unless she was interviewed about the "status" of the investigation (whatever that means) then she's in the clear.
"I snarked: "It depends on what the meaning of 'interview' is." And: "It depends on what the meaning of 'yet' is."" That is so disrespectful, especially coming from someone who chided Sanders and Lazio for disrespecting this poor woman. Now you are even using Bill's language against her, as if it isn't bad enough to have to live with a rapist, or at least stay married to him. Here's hoping Loretta Lynch will shut this whole vendetta down so that the American voters can show once and for all that violating the law by putting classified material on private servers in Colorado closets is no big deal when we have the opportunity to put the first grandmother in the White House.
There's always delay. The TV readers are trained on this: answer the questions almost before they've finished. When you see a remote with some guy in Idaho, the delay is long and obvious.
How to spot a liar. Every Clinton interview is a valuable contribution to scientific body of evidence.
I second M Jordan; some of the pause was almost certainly due to the audio delay (to Clinton's earpiece).
I depends on what you mean by FBI.
There's a scene in "Once and Future King" where young Wart is turned into a fish by Merlin as part of his ongoing education and preparation for becoming King Arthur one day. It culminates in him meeting a giant pike whose only goal was POWER (it's the "Might MAKES right vs. "Might FOR right" lesson). T. H. White describes the power-crazed fish as follows:
"The great body, shadowy and almost invisible among the stems, ended in a face which had been ravaged by all the passions of an absolute monarch—by cruelty, sorrow, age, pride, selfishness, loneliness, and thoughts too strong for individual brains. There he hung or hoved, his vast ironic mouth permanently drawn downward in a kind of melancholy. He was remorseless, disillusioned, logical, predatory, fierce, pitiless—but his great jewel of an eye was that of a stricken deer, large, fearful, sensitive, and full of griefs. He made no movement, but looked upon them with his bitter eye."
This was the face you just saw in Hillary Clinton, a face containing a lifetime of deceptions, destructions, and devourings. I do not see that face in any of the Republican candidates nor in Bernie nor O'Malley. But the Clintons ... that is their face.
Unspoken follow ups:
Have they indicated that they want to interview you?
Have you declined to be interviewed?
Do you expect to be interviewed?
Would you agree to be interviewed?
The pause and gaze were discomfort and hate. And also Hilary warning that further questions like that will be severely punished, especially if she becomes President. "Your career will be over, Tapper" is the message.
The media types who are not favoring the Clintons are afraid of them. With reason. Tapper's quick scrabble away from the line of questioning shows that it works.
He answer may also depend on the meaning of "no." It's already established that the Clintons consider "yes" to be a fluid concept.
“I have known a vast quantity of nonsense talked about bad men not looking you in the face. Don’t trust that conventional idea. Dishonesty will stare honesty out of countenance, any day in the week, if there is anything to be got by it.”
–Charles Dickens
Could it also depend on what the meaning of "FBI" is?
Tapper is now on the shit list. I don't care what he does or how much he might grovel in the future, he is on the permanent shit list.
Perhaps Trapper is CNN's trial balloon. Perhaps the network is testing whether it can pivot from being the Clinton News Network to the (Sanders) Communist News Network.
I don't know if the delay is multi-directional, but there wasn't much when tapper responded to her answer.
To Bill Clinton, No usually means Yes.
She may not have been questioned by the FBI yet, but I'm sure they've contacted her several times. That probably goes to the sense she was parsing her words and tone carefully.
She will be questioned and likely last as is often the case with the (most) guilty party. The investigator collects all the evidence and corroboration from the other witnesses/sources and then questions the investigation's key target. Not only is the target guilty, but they can pile on multiple counts of perjury if they start denying things that have been proven.
Chelsea is probably at risk, too, being she has been a foundation director since 2011 and the public corruption investigation is equally serious.
@PB it will be the public corruption charges that will sink her (if anything does) and with it maybe her daughter for the reasons you say and possibly her husband. The email the Left will spin away and any left minded moron will buy that. The money is harder to fool the rubes with.
If you want to see head-shaking, go back and watch last night's debate when Sanders was calling Bill Clinton a lout. I bet she's got a sore neck this morning.
Althouse:
I thought the interesting question was not whether she was lying but how it felt — inside her head — from 0:08 to 0:10.5 as she decided a straight, one-word lie was the best approach.
I don't think that was a flat out lie. That's why she had to think so much about it. If it were true, it would not be something she could hide.
It's the truth. And that's the problematic answer.
Because maybe then she might get asked: Why not? Isn't she co-operating with the investigation?? Or - have they asked?
No, she hasn't been interviewed - but that's because of the successful efforts of her lawyers to prevent that!
The FBI has no power of subpoena. They may have asked, and her lawyers may have said that she requires a subpoena, and maybe even said that even if she were subpoeaned before a grand jury - - she would take the 5th amendment. (and usually, prosecutors don't embarass witnesses like that.)
And she could argue that the answers to many questions may be privileged, and try to negotiate what her testimony would be about, and how much time there would be, and especially, can they tell her if she is, or is not, a target of the investigation?
Now the investigators may not be prepared to answer that yet, or perhaps have said: not so far.
You see, being a target of an investigation is certainly good grounds for taking the 5th amendment, and a person maybe then maintain with a straight face that that does not imply guilt.
That looked like a tape delay. Regardless, it seems silly to lie about that--it's not so bad to be interviewed by the FBI; it doesn't mean you are a suspect in doing something wrong. And if you can't discuss an ongoing investigation you can just say that.
But then, Clintons are such constant liars that they even lie when there's no benefit in doing so.
The bottom line is: The problematic (and surprising) answer actually is: No.
Now Jake Tapper did this when they were almost out of time, and Hillary Clinton thought a little, and then thought a little more, and ran out the clock a little bit more, as much as she could, just to increase the odds there would be no follow-up.
The question wasn't: "Did the FBI ask to interview you, but have they in fact done it?
Now she doesn't want to get a question for which a truthful answer would gether in trouble.
If she actually had been interviewed, she could also claim, if some time had passed, that they were satisfied with her answers, and they didn't have any more.
"...by the FBI, YET?"
The "yet" makes average voter, me, aware there is an FBI interview to look forward to
I don't think Hillary will speak to the FBI or testify, unless she can be very sure about the questions.
She'll look for excuses not to answer questions, and, if necessary, will take the 5th amendment. I think her lawyers may be trying to negotiate what the questions are going to be, and who is going to ask the questions, and how long it will take, and how longi t will be till she has to prepare, and if maybe they'll be satisfied with written questions -
that's it! -
She may have answered some written questions. Or had her lawyers draft some responses.
...and if they'll be satisfied with an affidavit, and if it can be a situation where she has the legal option of walking out..
And if she is called before a grand jury, they'll be working on how can they manuever it so she'll look the best if she takes the 5th amendment - and also try to keep the taking of thw 5th amendment a secret as long as possible. There's the problem of being asked if you took the 5th amendment, or asked to ask to release your grand jury testimony, so they don't want to get to that point.
I think the question is clear and she was telling the truth. Whether she was or was not interviewed by the FBI will surely be public information at some point. She could never get away with such a lie and she knows it. Maybe she was just tired.
Gotta lie better than this to be president.
A head shake AND a verbal "No"? That's a double negative. The only question is, is it negation or concord?
cubanbob said...
@PB it will be the public corruption charges that will sink her (if anything does)
If the charges against New York State Assembly Speaker Speaker Sheldon Silver and Setate Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos are any precedent, or a template, you would probably need:
A) Money that actually went into Bill or Hillary Clinton's pocket, not the Clinton Foundation, even if much of what the Clinton Foundation spent money on was to the Clinton's benefit (e.g, travel, salaries for people close to them, office supplies and furniture)
AND EITHER
B) The money was extorted. The people who gave it didn't really want to give it.
OR
C) There was a blatant on-the-record quid pro quo - perhaps in the e-mails
OR
D) An official decision was made that has no reasonable, non-corrupt explanation. The easiest kind to prove would be one form or another of handing out money.
She doesn't look well.
Brando said...1/18/16, 11:37 AM
it's not so bad to be interviewed by the FBI; it doesn't mean you are a suspect in doing something wrong.
It's bad, at this stage, not to have been interviewed by the FBI.
Because it means she's stalling.
She looks like she is on drugs.
"...by the FBI, YET?"
Good point. Jake Tapper knows something he didn't get a chance to elaborate on.
And no was the problematical answer for Hillary.
@Sammy
Or, it could be because you are the target, and the target gets "interviewed" last.
Idiotic question. Of course her lawyer, David Kendall, would NEVER allow the FBI to interview Hillary. An FBI interview of Martha Stewart resulted in her perjury conviction.
Better question: Has the FBI asked to interview you?
She's not been interviewed yet because they are gathering the truth before they get her story.
Looked like delay to me, too. Saw an interview this morning with Rand Paul where he was reacting to the opening comments after the interviewer had started in on the first question.
There's a similar delay between "I have one last question for you" and her tilting her head to the side bracing for the question.
There is a large downside for Hillary! in lying about matters as to which the FBI agents conducting the investigation know the truth. Her credibility (I realize that, in discussing Hillary!, the very idea has a farcical ring to it) is critical to her defense. Obvious lies can and will be cited against her if (really, when) the FBI recommends an indictment. She will need to have something to say to DOJ to try to head off an indictment, which at this point is the only development that would certainly derail her nomination.
Many just assume that AG Lynch will reject an indictment on political grounds. She may but that gets very tricky, since the whole story will leak quickly if the FBI agents see it that way. And it runs the risk of very public resignations a la the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate. They will need something to explain why DOJ rejected the FBI recommendation, if that's what happens -- something like the DOJ report on Ferguson which explained why the feds were not seeking an indictment against the cop. Failing that, an FBI recommendation could also kill her nomination even if DOJ rejects it.
Her political advisers as well as her attorneys at Williams & Connolly know all that. And it is inconceivable that she wasn't prepared for the question that Tapper asked, given all the leaks about the investigation and where it is headed. Those leaks are coming from the FBI and are their way of sending a shot across the bow to Hillary!, AG Lynch and Obama.
So I agree with Sammy F that I don't think she was lying here. I suspect that, through her attorneys, she has been asked for information and has been forced to 'cooperate,' by turning over her server, etc. But no interview yet. Her reaction here was more an expression of disgust that the presumptively Dem-favoring media was asking her something they knew she did not want to discuss.
Hillary's head is always bobbing along.
No delay. She is nodding along with Tapper until she hears what he is asking and she momentarily freezes right there.
I can't believe I'm saying this but I don't think she was lying. She looks annoyed with the question. The exaggerated blink and renewed head shaking as Tapper thanks her is meant to convey the queen's displeasure to viewers.
While the FBI may be investigating this, I just can't imagine that our corrupt government would ever indict a Clinton. Especially with a presidential election on the line. Democrats own the bureaucracy and control these agencies. It just ain't gonna happen. She knows the only thing she has to worry about is a backlash from voters. Hence her reaction to the question.
The bigger challenge is to try and find interview footage where you can tell Hillary is telling the truth. Good luck.
She may not have been questioned by the FBI yet, but I'm sure they've contacted her several times. That probably goes to the sense she was parsing her words and tone carefully.
She will be questioned and likely last as is often the case with the (most) guilty party. The investigator collects all the evidence and corroboration from the other witnesses/sources and then questions the investigation's key target. Not only is the target guilty, but they can pile on multiple counts of perjury if they start denying things that have been proven.
I think that this is it, more than Sammy's suggestion that she is not talking because of her lawyers (and, I think that she probably knows enough law still to not do an interview with the FBI unless forced to). My guess is that the FBI, knowing that she is well represented by counsel, is working on getting their facts in line, before forcing her to participate in an interview. Then, they can hold that over her head when they do interview her. Think of the perjury trap that they got Scooter Libby in. But, of course, she and her legal team know this too.
I don't think that I would like to be in her shoes right now. An awful lot of FBI agents are currently working on building a case that should put her in prison. She would much rather be President (and/or delay this until she could pardon herself, as only a Clinton could brazenly do). Or, just spending time with her grandchild. Except that it is too late for that - she is going to be investigated at this point regardless of whether she is running for President, and, I think, the FBI will likely refer the matter over to the DoJ for prosecution for at least the email crimes, but also, I think, the public corruption. Which means that if she really does have an alcohol problem, we will likely be seeing it rear its head over the next couple of months - that is the classic definition of stress, being caught between a rock (e.g. likely criminal referral) and a hard place (e.g. only way out is to win the nomination and election).
If she is the target, and there is ample reason to believe she is, she will not be interviewed. The FBI gains nothing useful to the prosecution. Her lawyer will see to that.
The downsides for the FBI are many. They reveal their case allowing the opportunity to frame a defense and take care of details - details like destroying evidence and intimidating potential witnesses. They, the prosecution, open themselves to endless procedural delays involving discovery and the exclusionary rule. A classic example of this is the O.J. Simpson case where the defense opted for a preliminary hearing that forced the prosecution to strip naked and show all.
The real issue here is politics. The FBI can not seek an indictment. They can only make a referral to the Justice Department. Anybody care to make any guesses as to what will come out of that black hole?
Blogger Michael said...
Tapper is now on the shit list.
----
Yes. The extra headshakes indicating/signaling her imagining what she wants to do to him.
By the way..just jamming that question in at last second was lame.
I read Hillary's expression to say, "No follow-up question, Jake. You're skating on thin ice already."
Truly, as Trump might say, "there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her… wherever.”
And it worked.
You could tell Tapper was already in a position of submission because he preceded his question with a promise there would be no follow-up no matter what she said, "I just have one last question for ya'...[stammer, stammer]..."
You know how you can tell if a Clinton is lying? Their lips are moving.
@Sammy - I remain unconvinced that the FBI will need to prove what you are suggesting they would need to for public corruption. What you seem to be suggesting seems similar to the defense of the McDonnells, who apparently just got Cert to review their corruption convictions (that we have been talking about at Legal Insurrection). The difference though is that they (the two politicians as well as Bob McDonnell) were elected public officials. Hillary was an executive branch employee at the time, really little different legally from when I was a GS-7 programmer 40 odd years ago. As noted there: "In campaign-finance cases, including Citizens United v. FEC, the court has noted that mere political favors for contributors do not amount to corruption..." Hillary arguably cannot have dispensed political favors since she was not, at the time, a politician, but rather, an executive branch government employee.
I don't think that she is dumb enough that they are going to find express quid pro quos in her email. But, just like you don't actually need a body to convict someone of murder, you shouldn't need the express quid pro quos to prove public corruption. Rather, a pattern of accepting money (either her husband or their foundation) and then in a very short time frame, the donor of that money getting something of value from the State Department. One instance doesn't make a pattern, but there were quite a few of these potentially illegal quid pro quos, and I think that a jury could quite easily believe that this meant that she was operating corruptly. Of course, it would be humorous if the prosecution (or at least the FBI agents) could use her husband's pardon of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican terrorists in proving the pattern (but he was a politician at the time, and they are actually two different people). We shall see.
Sammy foundations are supposed to give away 5% of their capital yearly, has the Clinton Foundation been do so? Foundations are supposed to give to IRS qualified charities, has the Clinton Foundation been doing so? Foundations are allowed to charge up to 15% of their income to overhead so if there has been less the clean money coming into the foundation it would appear that Bill, Hill and Chelsea as trustees and as recipients of salaries or expense reimbursements (and that in of itself can be a whole nother can of worms) could be facing a problem. As of now, the trend line in this investigation doesn't appear to be favorable to Hillary and Bill and Chelsea are intertwined in it.
Although there is extensive theory and literature about body language and lying, it's almost as much art as science. However, HRC's breaking eye contact, the big blink, and the pause, the exaggerated head shake all suggest deceit. Remember, too, that it's what the question means to her, so, for instance, if the FBI has requested an interview or documents, her attornys have offered a proffer, or Justice is negotiating a interview or Grand Jury appearance, something in that order, HRC feels she is being untruthful as to the intent of the question and involuntarily reacts.
I think the OP is correct. Hillary is - shocker - lying.
And of course the FBI has been in touch. Something like "Want to clarify this 'Remove the headers and send non-sercure' before we indict?" and of course her lawyers are trying to do damage control. If you think they are just stonewalling, I suspect you would be wrong. They are obfuscating, offering alternate realities, blaming George Bush, claiming there is additional record yet undiscovered or too secret to reveal, etc. Her defense is active, not passive, I would think. They are not sitting around, waiting for the hammer to drop.
Sammy one more thing it doesn't take a rocket scientist of a prosecutor to paint a picture to a jury that goes like this: a man who is a director of a family foundation and who derived economic benefit from the foundation but is not a major contributor to the foundation and who also happens to be a former president of the US along with his wife who is also a director of the same foundation who was a Secretary Of State of the US and not a major contributor to the foundation who co-incidentally granted favors to donors of the foundation while SoS and is still a director of the foundation that has received donations while the former SoS is currently the presumptive nominee of one of the major political parties in the upcoming presidential election and both have derived economic benefits from the donations of others outside the family along with their daughter who is also a director and trustee of the family foundation. Tell me you don't see a problem.
I really do not see any reason to think she's lying, other than the usual presumption that a Clinton is lying. What struck me as interesting was the timing of the question. Tapper says we're out of time but I have this one last question. Suppose she'd answered Yes. Or suppose she'd said, I've had several discussions with the FBI. Would Tapper have left it there because they were out of time? Not likely. Tapper wanted and expected the answer to be No.
Yeah, why didn't Tapper lead w/that question? Because it would have required a follow-up.
Tapper's a weak-kneed weasel.
For someone who lies as much as Hillary,one might expect her to be a little better at it.
On the other hand, the people who have a psychological need to believe her, will.
steve uhr,
She has frequently lied in the past and gotten away with it. She would likely expect that she could do so again, and if she were called on it, she could pretend that she was thinking of a different context for "interview."
dbp said...
For someone who lies as much as Hillary,one might expect her to be a little better at it."
It would appear that Christopher Hitchens was wrong when he labeled the Clintons as unusually good liars or is it that the mystique has finally worn through?
And yes you are right, there are people invested with a need to believe her. No doubt they are hopping for some crumbs from The Queen.
Wow. The comparison, between Hillary in 2000, and what is left of Hillary in 2014, is appalling. If I didn't hate her filthy, lying guts, I would feel sorry for her. She has one foot in outer space, and the other one in the grave. Her running mate had better hope she lasts until the election.
Q - what happens if Hillary wins, but dies before January? Just wanted to get that out there. Her VP choice could be more important than anything the FBI gets up to.
It's not that big a crime. If found guilty she can wear an ankle bracelet or maybe perform public service on the weekends.
If you can get a bj in the Oval Office, why can't you wear an ankle bracelet in the White House or pick up trash in the Rose Garden on the weekends.
Clintons are world class liars. She probably had her lawyers on the phone immediately after the interview developing future responses to similar questions and responses to revelations that the FBI has already interviewed her.
My theory: that's not a head shake, it's an unconscious habit of simply moving around--never holding still--that she picked up while in country dodging sniper fire. It's something you see in a fair number of combat vets--always making slight movements, adjustments; repositioning just enough that a bullet in flight might miss its mark.
Hillary's seen some shit, ya'll.
It's not that big a crime. If found guilty she can wear an ankle bracelet or maybe perform public service on the weekends.
There is an interesting question that arises if she is convicted of a federal crime (etc), and that is whether she can serve. There is apparently a statute that prevents people convicted of the types of crimes that she is alleged to have committed from working for the federal govt. Except that arguably that doesn't apply to the President or VP, where the only requirements are those found in the Constitution. So, I think that I could argue that if she were convicted, that she couldn't serve as Sec. of State again, but maybe could be President or VP. Weird.
"So, I think that I could argue that if she were convicted, that she couldn't serve as Sec. of State again, but maybe could be President or VP. Weird."
Not so weird. Instead of having the courts making the decision about whether the conduct disqualifies, the Constitution leaves it up to the voters, or to their elected representatives via the impeachment process. Pretty sound process imho.
"Have you or the people who work for you had any contact with the FBI regarding your private email server?"
It's not hard to ask a clear question. But even good reporters mostly seem to lack the knack these days.
Nothing happens by accident in ClintonWorld. It is likely that this 'interview' was scripted exactly according to pre-broadcast negotiations. Including her perfunctory (false) answer to this highly pertinent question. BTW, the question is worded vaguely leaving more than one back door open.
Jake Tapper, I love you, but ya gotta ask follow-ups!!!!!
If you haven't been interviewed by the FBI, has Huma Abedin? Has anyone on your staff? Has anyone from the FBI contacted you or anyone on your staff about the private server? Have you hired any attorneys yet? If so, who? Can we interview him?
@Bruce Hayden: interesting observation; she could be president but no one who has a security clearance would be allowed to discuss those very same matters with her.
Nothing happens by accident in ClintonWorld.
No kidding. She has a tell. Her head will start nodding consensus before the speaker has completed the question, or statement. It's like she knows the statement/question is coming.
Fuck Hillary, Glenn Fry has died.
Sorry, Glenn Frey.
This is when we need Andrew Sullivan. He's hates Hillary about as much as he hates Sarah Palin's uterus.
The US constitution forbids the federal government (and the states, I believe) from granting titles of nobility. A wealthy foundation makes a good proxy for a title of nobility. A title of nobility is more than just a fancy name. It allows you to accumulate and expend political capital across generations.
She looks like she had an agreement that the subject wouldn't come up, and then when the host had too much time left, he thought what the hell, bust her.
That little shake of her head at the last was "I can't believe you broke the interview agreement."
That's how I read it anyway.
I don't think she wanted to say "no" she wanted to say "you fuck! You lousy fuck!"
But she chose the high route...
Terry said...
The US constitution forbids the federal government (and the states, I believe) from granting titles of nobility. A wealthy foundation makes a good proxy for a title of nobility. A title of nobility is more than just a fancy name. It allows you to accumulate and expend political capital across generations.
1/18/16, 5:28 PM"
Interesting point but in comparison to government officials in their official capacity small beer. Effective titles of Nobility: officials exempting themselves from the laws and regulations and immunizing themselves for damages and harm they cause while acting under the color of law.
Joe said...Sorry, Glenn Frey.
Luckily he died of old age. 50,000 of his peers were rubbed-out in the war.
He said he dodged the draft by moving all the time. By the time the selective service got his new address into the computer, he'd have already moved.
Blogger Terry said...The US constitution forbids the federal government (and the states, I believe) from granting titles of nobility.
--
I've always felt it off-putting when elected officials seemingly retain their titles past their terms. "President ____", "Governor___" and yes.."Secretary Clinton"
Individuals can go to jail or die, cubanbob. With advance directives and control of the board makeup, a foundation can be directed from within prison or from the grave.
coupe.
It was 58,156, and yes, he dodged the draft, but what was his draft number? I recently worked with a fellow who had a relatively high number and so never got drafted. One of my teachers in college got drafted and was sent to Germany as a photographer. Two college classmates served in Vietnam as did my ex-father-in-law; all volunteered (one was a marine stationed near the DMZ, one a B52 pilot and one a mechanic on an aircraft carrier. Talking to them, you'd think they all went to different wars.)
(Also be aware that 25% of the soldiers in Vietnam were drafted, with 30% of the casualties being draftees.)
No need to worry about Chelsea. Have you seen her from behind? Damn! PAWG! That, plus the $300 million in the Clinton Foundation ... She'll be just fine. Even with that limpdick nincompoop husband.
Ahtouse makes Belmont Club.
She is still running XP as her operating system. Didn't want to risk upgrading to Vista just before the campaign. Her staff will evaluate Win 8.1 at a later date.
Upon further reflection I deleted my original comment because I think coupe (6:20 PM) has it right. More or less.
In connection with the investigation, she has to be at least a subject or a target -- they wouldn't have categorised her as a witness if they're bothering to investigate in the first place. And she's well advised by counsel. So I'm confident she hasn't been interviewed by the FBI. If she's been interviewed at all, it was probably under a Queen-for-a-Day agreement, and by a federal prosecutor, not an FBI agent (although FBI agents regularly sit in on interviews). But more likely, she's been cooperating through counsel by attorney proffers, rather than offering herself up directly. So I am pretty sure her answer here is truthful and (if it's not a tape delay) she's just thinking back to make sure there wasn't some FBI agent who buttonholed her at her offices for an ambush interview at the start of the investigation.
No, Hillary has told so many lies she had to go back and think of what lie she may trip on with her response. She was finding what was the best way to parse an answer that would not damage her later when one of her lies is exposed.
She just as so many things to cover up I have no doubt she gets confused sometimes.
What a tangled web she weaves.
"She was finding what was the best way to parse an answer that would not damage her later when one of her lies is exposed."
Seriously, Paul? What lies has Hillary ever paid the price for?
She was just feeling sad for Jake, who once showed so much promise, that he will never be invited to an A-List cocktail party again.
She is still running XP as her operating system. Didn't want to risk upgrading to Vista just before the campaign. Her staff will evaluate Win 8.1 at a later date.
I'm a computer pro and still run XP. It avoids bit rot, where some graduate student "improves" a compiler so that your old programs no longer work.
Never upgrade what's working.
She looked a bit zombie-like; her answer (and her flat affect) when she flatly said "No," was weird and it makes no sense. Tapper's question was very specific: have you been interviewed by the FBI about the security of your server? Her answer does not jibe with earlier answers she has given.
There is no question in her own mind that the two are -- or at least were -- different. She went out of her way to distinguish the FBI investigation of her server security from the expanded inquiry into public corruption, during her interview with the Des Moines Register; and in that interview, she certainly suggests she had already been questioned about the server. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/11/clinton-denies-fbi-investigation-into-family-foundation/78655054/
And this Politico story all but says the same thing, too. Or put another way, there's no story out there (that I could find) in which she DENIES having been interviewed by the FBI re her server (until now). http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630
Apparently she had only the "public corruption" investigation on her mind when Tapper asked her a different question entirely. That, or maybe now she views questions about the server itself as inextricably intertwined with the public corruption inquiry, given the server presumably was an instrumentality of the offense and also holds evidence she solicited donations to CGI in return for favors from State.
Otherwise, it sounds like she flat-out lied to Tapper, or she was "very confused," as we know happens with her on occasion. It must be extremely difficult to lie constantly and, on top of that, make sure that all your lies are consistent.
About the only thing you can say about the way Hillary responded to teh question is that:
First,
1) She listened carefully, with a stone face - she didn't know what the question was going to be until she heard it.
Second,
2) She thought about it. You can't exactly say what she was thinking.
Third,
3) She decided on the answer, and
4) Decided that because it was such a simple answer, it should ahve been answered quickly, and speeded up the way she said the word "No," trying to catch up with the delay.
She got it out fast, once she decided. But that shouldn't fool a careful listener. She didn't decide to say "No" till after a long pause.
Althouse "felt sure she was lying."
Well, Hillary was using her mouth to make the sounds of words. And based upon her past, when she does that, she lies. So yes, most likely lying. Unless Hillary found a new way to speak, compared to her entire past history of speaking.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा