I guess the focus groups said it was time to pivot to conditional remorse or something. In an interview with ABC's David Muir, who asked a few tough questions but let her off the hook on the biggest one of all, Hillary decides it's time to go ahead and let the word "sorry" pass through her lips - knowing full well that will be the headline. But what does a word from Hillary mean? Nothing at all, especially when she follows it up with the exact same phony claims she's been using all along to justify what she did:
In exactly what sense was the exclusive use of a private server for all work-related e-mails "allowed"? If Hillary has repeated this claim once she's repeated it a thousand times, but we already know official State Department policy called for everyone to operate using the federal government's server. One thing lying Clintons do when it's very important to get away with the lie (at least legally) is to use a very carefully chosen word over and over again, no matter how patently absurd it seems. The word "allowed" is not very precise in a legal or procedural sense. Since it was contrary to policy, how can it be said to have been "allowed"? Who allowed it? Her? Since as Secretary of State she could do whatever she wanted? No one in particular, since no one specifically came to her and forbid it? Obama, since he presumably knew about it and didn't tell her to stop doing it?
The use of "allowed" is Hillary's way of trying to create the impression her actions were consistent with policy. They weren't (or what would she have to be sorry about?) but she just keeps repeating it anyway.
Also, about the content of the e-mail, Muir does her a huge favor by focusing his question only on the two e-mails said to contain "top secret" information, giving Hillary an out by letting her claim that different agencies had different views about those two particular messages. That's complete crap, of course, but she can say it and he doesn't challenge her either because he doesn't know enough to get into it with her, or because he wants to move on to something else. Why not ask her, instead, about independent reviews that have shown as many as 180 e-mails already found on her system contained classified information, including at least six that she herself originated? I got the sense as Muir asked the question that he considered it obligatory to go there a little, but really didn't have his heart in it, which is why he limited the scope of the question do the extent he did.
Then, of course, he does her a huge favor by moving on to other questions, including the one about Hillary's mother that gives her the opportunity to cry for the masses. And yes, I'm suggesting the emotion was fake, because I've never seen any evidence that anything this woman does is genuine - certainly not her new, shiny, poll-tested claim to be sorry for anything. The only thing she's sorry about is that you are all such poor servants who refuse to drop your obsession with her dishonesty and coronate her with the crown to which she is rightly entitled.
I guess the focus groups said it was time to pivot to conditional remorse or something. In an interview with ABC's David Muir, who asked a few tough questions but let her off the hook on the biggest one of all, Hillary decides it's time to go ahead and let the word "sorry" pass through her lips - knowing full well that will be the headline. But what does a word from Hillary mean? Nothing at all, especially when she follows it up with the exact same phony claims she's been using all along to justify what she did:
