A Need to Clear Up Clinton Questions

"Some people think they can lie and get away with it," said former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with feigned outrage. And, of course, he has never been held accountable for his lies, proving his dictum true.

The question today is: Will former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Teflon coat be as impermeable to deep scratches as Rumsfeld's has proven to be?

For example, at the March 9 debate in Miami, Jorge Ramos, the longtime anchor for Noticiero Univision, asked Secretary Clinton whether she would quit the presidential race if she were indicted for putting classified information on her private email server. With the "mainstream media" by and large giving Hillary Clinton a pass on her past, few Americans realize how many Pinocchio faces need to be tacked onto many of her statements. Clinton is said to be "unquestionably" the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, essentially the presumptive nominee. That is unquestionably true -- but only because she has not been questioned with much rigor at all. And on those few occasions when she has been asked hard questions, she has often ducked them.

She replied: "Oh, for goodness sake, it's not going to happen. I'm not even answering that question." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?"]

Not so fast, Madame Secretary. It is looking more and more as if you will, after all, have to answer that question.

Those "Damn Emails" Again

On Wednesday in Washington, DC, a federal judge issued an order that may eventually require Clinton to testify under oath in a lawsuit related to the private email server she used while Secretary of State.

The judge gave Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, permission to take sworn testimony from close Clinton aide Huma Abedin and others over the next eight weeks. It is possible that Clinton herself will have to testify under oath on the serious email issue before arriving at the Democratic convention in July.

One key issue in question is whether all relevant documents have been provided to Judicial Watch. My guess is that -- given lawyers' propensity, and often their incentive, to secure delay after delay in such proceedings -- there may not be much likelihood of all this happening that quickly.

More precarious for Secretary Clinton, in my view, is the possibility that FBI Director James Comey will be allowed to perform a serious investigation and pursue Clinton on sworn testimony she has already given; for example, on whether she was aware of an operation run out of Benghazi to deliver Libyan weapons to rebels in Syria.

During her marathon testimony on Oct. 22, 2015, to the House Select Committee on Benghazi chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, was very specific in his questioning, leaving Clinton little wiggle-room:

Pompeo: Were you aware or are you aware of any U.S. efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons, directly or indirectly, or through a cutout, to any Syrian rebels or militias or opposition to Syrian forces?

Clinton: No.

Pompeo: Were you aware or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to facilitate or support the provision of weapons to any opposition of Gadhafi's forces, Libyan rebels or militias through a third party or country?