Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Technique": What About Hillary's ‘Adaptive Liar’ Technique?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Technique," Paul Krugman would have us examine the lies of Donald Trump, but ignore those of Hillary ("She stands accused of being overly legalistic or overstating the extent to which she has been cleared, but not of making major claims that are completely at odds with reality"). Krugman would have us know:

"Donald Trump has come up with something new, which we can call the 'big liar' technique. Taken one at a time, his lies are medium-size — not trivial, but mostly not rising to the level of blood libel. But the lies are constant, coming in a steady torrent, and are never acknowledged, simply repeated. He evidently believes that this strategy will keep the news media flummoxed, unable to believe, or at least say openly, that the candidate of a major party lies that much."

Okay, Trump employs the "big liar" technique and suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder; he should not be president of the United States. But what about Hillary's "adaptive liar" technique? As observed by Marc Thiessen in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton fails the ABCs of handling classified information" (my emphasis in red):

"The fact is, every single person in America with even the lowest level of security clearance knows what (C) means. Clinton served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she regularly received classified information with a (C) marking on it. As secretary of state, she likely read classified documents with (C) markings every single day. And we’re supposed to believe she thought it was an alphabetical marking?

This was a fantastical argument for anyone with a security clearance, but it was totally lacking in credibility for someone with her proven pattern of deceit. Clinton has repeatedly changed her story: First, she told us there was “no classified material” in her private emails (which the FBI says was untrue). Then she told us there was nothing “classified at the time” (which the FBI also says was also untrue). Finally, she told us there was nothing “marked classified” in her private emails (which the FBI says was also untrue). So now she tells FBI interviewers that she does not know what (C) means, and they believe her?"

But lying is the least of it. The rule of law no longer exists in America, owing to Hillary. Allow Cheryl Mills, who had previously been questioned by the FBI, to be Hillary's legal counsel while the former secretary of state was undergoing questioning by the FBI? Ignore the destruction of Hillary's cell phones with a hammer? Sweep the erasure of Hillary's emails, which had been subpoenaed by Congress, under the carpet? Accept Hillary's 40 declarations to the FBI that she "could not recall" information relating to their questions, e.g., "any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." This is despicable.

There is obviously one set of laws for the Clintons and another for the hoi polloi. But why should any of this trouble Paul "the conscience of a liberal" Krugman?

Gail Collins, "Trump Meets the Mean Boys": Will Hillary Soon Meet the FBI?

Tweet

Two weeks ago,  I observed that The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo News, Bloomberg and UPI had all published articles concerning the State Department subpoena served on the Clinton Foundation, but The New York Times decided to ignore the matter entirely. I asked whether the Times is still a newspaper, or, if it has become a highly politicized, self-serving propaganda machine. Well, it now appears that the Times has belatedly woken up to the stench emanating from the Clinton campaign. First, there was Thursday's editorial asking that Hillary make the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, et al., available to the public. And yesterday, in a Times article entitled "Unclassified Clinton Emails May Have Consequences for a Key Deputy" by Steven Lee Myers, we were told re the Hillary home email server imbroglio:

"Even admirers of Mrs. Clinton’s record as secretary of state acknowledge that the use of the server had consequences for her select circle of confidants. They include Mr. [Jake] Sullivan, who as director of policy planning and a deputy chief of staff, handled the most pressing policies and international crises during her tenure as secretary. Others were Cheryl D. Mills, her chief of staff, and Huma Abedin, who was then also a deputy chief of staff, and other senior diplomats who sent messages to her now under scrutiny.

. . . .

Several of the emails released so far make clear, even in redacted form, that officials understood the protocol for discussing classified information, including Mrs. Clinton herself."

Can the FBI cannot avoid recommending indictments? I don't think so. This could get very nasty for Sullivan, Mills and Abedin, and later, for their beloved boss.

On the subject of "nasty," Gail Collins has graced us today with a tepid New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Meets the Mean Boys." Collins again fails to mention any of the "nastiness" involving the Clinton campaign, and instead directs her barbs at the feud that has erupted between Rubio and Trump. Collins, who once received from Trump a copy of her column with "The Face of a Dog!" written over her picture, writes:

"You can understand why Rubio felt that getting personal was the only way to go. Trump has been breezing through the campaign without making any discernible effort to come up with coherent policies, or even to keep his stories straight."

Collins's conclusion:

"The great moment of debate night, as far as I’m concerned, came after the actual debate was over, and Trump suggested in a CNN postgame interview, that the I.R.S. might audit him a lot 'because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian … and maybe there’s a bias.'

Then in a CNN post-postgame interview Trump took it all back. ('I don’t think it applies.') As only he can."

However, Collins misses the point: Trump is a bully sans substance, and finally someone, i.e. Rubio, has shown the courage to needle this flimflam artist, whose Trump University has been exposed as a fraud. Let's hope that it is not too late.

Christie's endorsement of the Republican poster boy for narcissistic personality disorders? Sic [New Jersey] transit gloria mundi, with the emphasis on "sick."