I don't know why Hillary ever worried about answering questions from the press if these were the kinds of questions she was going to get. Good night. CNN's Brianna Keller certainly knows how to snag an exclusive interview with someone who can't stand accountability under any circumstances. Just don't ask substantive questions.
Benghazi? What's that? The Russian "reset"? Old news! The trade deal she now pretends to oppose but relentlessly advocated as Secretary of State? Mere esoterica! The private e-mail server? "Tell me the story." Ideas on tax policy, federal spending, entitlement programs, ObamaCare, the Iran nuclear deal, Russian aggression, the collapse of Greece . . . huh?
CNN gets to the real issues. Which woman should be on the $10 bill? Who imitates you better, Kate MacKinnon or Amy Poehler? How about that horrible thing Donald Trump said? This is just embarrassing. I don't know how CNN goes on the air today after a sham like this. (below)
The rare question here that actually matters proves an even bigger embarrassment than the trivial nonsense that comprises most of it, because Keller so easily lets Hillary get away with the obvious lies. Why sure people trust me! It's just those nasty Republicans who say I don't! Everything I did with the e-mails was allowed! It's just those Republicans who say it wasn't!
The only point in the interview when Keller seems even mildly engaged is when she momentarily challenges Hillary on her claim that previous Secretaries of State did the same things she did with e-mail, noting that they didn't delete tens of thousands of messages before turning over the rest to the State Department. But that fizzles quickly as Hillary demands that they "take a breath," at which point Keller completely caves - never getting around to challenging Hillary on the obvious lie that there were no rules against what she did, and never bringing up anything more damning like the fact that she altered some of the e-mails prior to turning them over, or the fact that Trey Gowdy's committee discovered quite a few e-mails between Hillary and Sid Blumenthal that she didn't turn over.
Instead, they just devolve into this stupid little cackling exchange about socks and fax machines.
There will be a knee-jerk inclination to blame all this on liberal bias, but I think a lot of the problem is this: The only reason Hillary is seen as the "front-runner" for the nomination is that she's a celebrity. She's a very well-known name and one of the most recognized faces in American politics. It's her celebrity status, not any real record of accomplishment, that causes the press to take her seriously as a candidate. So when they do an interview with her, they're like Entertainment Tonight interviewing Meryl Streep or Jennifer Lopez. You're not going to get a deep dive into the artistic merits of their latest film or anything like that. Fans of a celebrity don't want that. Where did you get that outfit? What's it like to be famous?
And that's fine if you're interviewing a movie star. It's not fine if you're interviewing a woman who wants to be president of the United States. CNN is a news channel devoid of substance, interviewing a presidential candidate devoid of any rationale for her candidacy. The fact that anyone takes either side of this exchange seriously is really an indictment of this entire nation. It's pathetic.
I don't know why Hillary ever worried about answering questions from the press if these were the kinds of questions she was going to get. Good night. CNN's Brianna Keller certainly knows how to snag an exclusive interview with someone who can't stand accountability under any circumstances. Just don't ask substantive questions.
Benghazi? What's that? The Russian "reset"? Old news! The trade deal she now pretends to oppose but relentlessly advocated as Secretary of State? Mere esoterica! The private e-mail server? "Tell me the story." Ideas on tax policy, federal spending, entitlement programs, ObamaCare, the Iran nuclear deal, Russian aggression, the collapse of Greece . . . huh?
