New York Post’s Latest Hillary Clinton Lie Refuted In Their Own Article

It takes a special kind of stupid to make an argument stating one thing, and then provide support for that argument that proves the opposite. Yet that’s exactly what the New York Post did Friday with an editorial attacking Hillary Clinton. The editorial carried the provocative headline: “Hillary’s latest email lie didn’t even last a week.”

Hillary Clinton New York Post

This headline is not only accusing Clinton of lying with her response to a new question about her email, it also declares, without evidence, that she has lied about it previously. The Post expects their readers to blindly absorb their dishonest “reporting” and, lucky for them, they are right. Conservatives have demonstrated that they are more than willing to accept unsubstantiated BS as gospel without ever bothering to verify it.

In this editorial, the unidentified authors claim that Clinton gave a false answer to a question by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell who asked “Have you been contacted — or your representatives contacted — by the FBI to set up an interview.” Clinton answered “No,” which the Post immediately labeled a lie. They gave two “reasons” to back up their accusation, both of which don’t hold up.

First, they pointed out that “the FBI has already interviewed Clinton’s closest confidant, Huma Abedin, and other top aides.” So how does that support the claim that Clinton lied? She wasn’t asked if any of her associates were interviewed. She was asked if there had been any efforts to set up an interview for her. She said that there have not been, and all of the available information supports her answer. The Post has no information whatsoever that contradicts her.

The second reason the Post gave to “prove” that Clinton lied is that “officials close to the probe say Hillary’s to be interviewed in the next few weeks — which means she’s surely been contacted.” Actually the Post has no knowledge that Clinton has “surely been contacted” and are themselves lying by making up what they would like to think it “means” when a general statement is made that Clinton will be interviewed at some unspecified time in the future. It does not, in fact, mean what they say it does.

What the Post is not reporting (and that CNN did report) is that “so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.” That’s not consistent with the guilty-until-proven-innocent (and probably not even then) narrative that the conservative media is pushing. So don’t expect to see it in the Post or on Fox News.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

As for the Post’s article, both of the reasons supplied in it to affirm that Clinton lied actually affirm that she told the truth. This is the sort of bogus perversion of journalism that is the hallmark of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. The Post article was also published on the Fox News community website, Fox Nation which, along with the Post is owned by Murdoch.


5 thoughts on “New York Post’s Latest Hillary Clinton Lie Refuted In Their Own Article

  1. Of course, if the Post had attacked one of the Rethuglicans’ sacred cows (including the pig that serves as the presumptuous nominee [I love that description, really]), suddenly the FoxPods will demand absolute incontrovertible proof or it didn’t happen. Absolute proof meaning, naturally, solely that it was covered on Fox Spews. Because anyone ELSE attacking a Rethuglican must be part of an evil lefty plot to frame an innocent man, right?

    And then, when Fox Spews does cover it, obviously the man MUST have been a Democrat because Rethuglicans wouldn’t DO this kind of thing.

    What happened to honest competition between two political parties? Yeah, it’s rhetorical: we’ve NEVER had “honest competition” between the parties, have we?

  2. Every time you fact check one of Secretary Clinton’s past “crimes” it turns out to be made up by the right wing to hurt her election chances. No wonder Trump has pivoted to trying to blame her for Bill Clinton’s “rapes” which turned out to actually be serial consensual sex. It’s beginning to look like you can tell that a conservative is lying because he’s either investigating Clinton or his lips are moving.

  3. Clinton is unsuited to be President not because of a few facts that check out or don’t check out. She’s unsuited because she is obscuring her true intentions and motives – just like Trump is. There are too many flip-flops in her history with embarrassing proximity to either some contact with large donors or during a campaign. When her actions don’t align with her words, we can’t truly call her a liar, but we can recognize that she’s not being truthful.

    • If you think that Clinton is anything remotely like Trump, I can’t take anything you say seriously.

Comments are closed.