*Hillary’s long record of lying to keep the public in the dark
<http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/hillarys-long-record-of-lying-to-keep-the-public-in-the-dark/>*

By Jacob Sullum <http://nypost.com/author/jacob-sullum/>

May 31, 2016 | 8:22pm

[image: Description: dem_2016_clinton-4]

Modal Trigger
<http://nypost.com/2016/05/31/hillarys-long-record-of-lying-to-keep-the-public-in-the-dark/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NY%2520Post%2520Newsletter&utm_source=Sailthru>
[image:
Description: Hillary’s long record of lying to keep the public in the dark]

Photo: AP

The last time she lived in the White House, Hillary Clinton was in charge
of a health-care task force that met in secret under a veil of lies. That
episode highlighted the haughtiness, deceit and disdain for transparency
that continue to cause trouble for the presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee, as illustrated by the recent inspector general’s report on her
e-mail practices as secretary of state.

When President Bill Clinton picked his wife to chair the Task Force on
National Health Care Reform in 1993, critics sued the first lady, arguing
that her participation made the task force subject to the public-meeting
and open-record requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The
administration successfully argued that Clinton, who was not a government
employee, nevertheless should be counted as one in this context, making the
transparency requirements inapplicable.

There remained the issue of the working groups advising the task force,
which supposedly consisted entirely of government employees. That turned
out to be a lie.

In 1997 — three years after the Clinton health-care plan was defeated, in
no small part because of the perception that it had been written behind
closed doors without public input and debate — US District Judge Royce
Lamberth rebuked the administration for its “outrageous” and
“reprehensible” deception concerning participants in the working groups,
many of whom were private parties with a stake in the outcome.

“The executive branch of the Government, working in tandem, was dishonest
with this court,’’ he wrote. “It is clear that the decisions here were made
at the highest levels of Government.”

Lamberth had previously criticized Clinton et al’s “preposterous,”
“incomplete” and “inadequate” responses to the plaintiffs’ requests for
relevant information, which had made the discovery process “difficult,
drawn-out, and contentious.” He ruled the defendants had “improperly
thwarted plaintiffs’ legitimate discovery requests” by raising “meritless”
objections.

Two decades later, Clinton’s old habits of entitlement and obfuscation are
coming to the fore again. “Voters just don’t trust her,” The New York Times
notes, citing a recent survey in which 64 percent of respondents said
Clinton is not “honest and trustworthy.” Her response to the e-mail
controversy shows why.

When Clinton was appointed secretary of state, the report from the State
Department’s inspector general says, departmental policy clearly stated
that officials should avoid using private e-mail services for work.

Clinton decided that rule, which was aimed at promoting security and the
preservation of records, did not apply to her, and throughout her tenure
she relied exclusively on a personal e-mail system, communicating via a
server in the basement of her house in Chappaqua, NY.

Although Clinton has repeatedly claimed this arrangement was “allowed by
the State Department,” the inspector general’s report says she never sought
approval and would not have received it if she had. Yet even after the
report came out, Clinton told ABC News her use of a personal e-mail account
“was allowed.”

The report says Clinton also broke the rules by failing to surrender her
official correspondence prior to leaving the State Department. She didn’t
do so until nearly two years later, and even then many messages were
missing, including everything from her first few months as secretary of
state.

Clinton’s campaign nevertheless claims “she took steps that went much
further than others to appropriately preserve and release her records.”

Clinton also is less than forthcoming in discussing her motivation for
using private e-mail. She says it was a matter of convenience. Yet in 2010,
when an aide urged her to use the State Department system instead, she
replied that “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Around the same time, the report says, two employees of the State
Department’s Office of Information Resources Management broached the
subject, and their boss “instructed the staff never to speak of the
Secretary’s personal email system again.”

No doubt Clinton wishes she could issue the same order to the rest of the
country.


__._,_.___
------------------------------
Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]>
------------------------------


Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOWEybzJ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjQ3ODk2NTQ->


[image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNGUyaGJsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NDc4OTY1NA-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to