Publisher's Note: One of the most significant things you can do to promote Liberty is to support our efforts. Please make your gift to The Patriot Fund’s 2019 Year-End Campaign today. Thank you! —Mark Alexander, Publisher
Government & Politics

Hillary 'Apologizes,' Offers Desperate Redirect

Clinton tackles campaign finance reform to distract from email woes.

Nate Jackson · Sep. 9, 2015

Hillary Clinton is perhaps the worst “inevitable” presidential candidate in history. It seems the high point for her 2016 run was the day before she announced. And even before that, the scandals surrounding her private email server and the Clinton Foundation slush fund — not to mention her long record of malfeasance — threatened to undermine her appeal. So what’s the would-be first woman president to do to secure her right to the Oval Office? Solve all America’s problems by proposing … more campaign finance limits.

But first, her remarks about her email. In a twist few expected from a Clinton, she finally decided to apologize — sort of. “What I had done was allowed, it was above board,” she first insisted. “But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

She left out a couple of words, though. We’ll add them: “That was a mistake [to not better cover my tracks]. I’m sorry about [getting caught].”

Indeed, just last week, she said, “I certainly wish that I had made a different choice,” adding that she was “sorry that this has been confusing to people.”

She’s spent months either dodging questions entirely or stubbornly refusing to admit any error. In a Labor Day interview with the Associated Press, Hillary argued, “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.”

Uh, wasn’t she running the State Department at the time? What a relief to know she gave herself permission to run a private email server.

Then she went on more than once to deny wrongly handling classified information: “I did not send or receive any information marked classified. I take the responsibilities of handling classified materials very seriously and did so.” Also, “I’m so careful about classified information. I take classified material very, very seriously.”

Virtually everything she has said about the ordeal, however, is a lie that we’ve recounted extensively. The latest is that a second intelligence review of two particular emails found that both contained “Top Secret” information when they were sent to Hillary in 2009 and 2011, respectively. One email had information regarding North Korea’s nuclear program from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. For intelligence agencies to agree on the classification undermines Clinton’s regular rebuttal that it’s just an inter-agency dispute over the meaning of “classified.”

And not only did she receive information classified by other originating agencies (the only classification that matters is that of the originating agency), but we learned last week that Hillary originated classified emails. So for her to continue her denial is, well, very Clintonesque. But it’s the “drip, drip, drip” of the release of information that might help her most, as Americans tune out and quit caring that she violated multiple laws regarding classified information and obstruction of justice.

Perhaps her apology came because of her plummeting poll numbers. She brings universal name recognition, a sizable war chest, inevitability and first-female president potential … and she’s still struggling. That speaks volumes about just how bad a candidate she really is — all the Clinton baggage with none of Bill’s appeal.

In a pitiful attempt to redirect the conversation to policy — not to mention shore up her left flank against Bernie Sanders — she announced this week a proposal to further limit political campaign donations. Recall that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, universally despised by Democrats, stemmed from an anti-Hillary video during the 2008 election cycle. The Court struck down some donation restrictions implemented in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” law.

The Wall Street Journal explains, “[S]he would have the government provide matching funds for campaign donations below a certain dollar amount, lower the cap on the amount individuals can contribute to candidates, and force independent groups to disclose their donors. She would also try to rewrite the First Amendment to allow more regulation of political speech.”

Hillary railed against “unaccountable money that is distorting our elections,” though she has no problem putting current law to full use through her Priorities USA Action super PAC, which brought in $15 million in July. Does that super PAC disclose its donors? Please. You see, her campaign says, she couldn’t possibly “unilaterally disarm.”

There’s also that little side venture called the Clinton Foundation, which no doubt will be exempt from any of Hillary’s reform proposals. She’s more than happy to divert a sizable portion of her and Bill’s massive income to her foundation’s slush fund to avoid taxes and questions of influence. As secretary of state, she worked on behalf of people, companies and governments that, lo and behold, had given millions and millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

The Constitution protects free speech, and part of that speech is through making campaign donations. So until the day when people and companies are free to give to candidates rather than super PACs — and Hillary fully discloses her own operations with the Foundation and email servers — she can spare us the lecture about “transparency.”

Click here to show comments

It's Right. It's Free.