This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest | Jill Abramson

I’ve investigated Hillary and know she likes a ‘zone of privacy’ around her. This lack of transparency, rather than any actual corruption, is her greatest flaw

It’s impossible to miss the “Hillary for Prison” signs at Trump rallies. At one of the Democratic debates, the moderator asked Hillary Clinton whether she would drop out of the race if she were indicted over her private email server. “Oh for goodness – that is not going to happen,” she said. “I’m not even going to answer that question.”

Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical. Nonetheless, the belief that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is pervasive. A recent New York Times-CBS poll found that 40% of Democrats say she cannot be trusted.

For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.

I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

The yardsticks I use for measuring a politician’s honesty are pretty simple. Ever since I was an investigative reporter covering the nexus of money and politics, I’ve looked for connections between money (including campaign donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and official actions. I’m on the lookout for lies, scrutinizing statements candidates make in the heat of an election.

The connection between money and action is often fuzzy. Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.

As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).

I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy. Instead, by not disclosing information, she fueled speculation that she was hiding grave wrongdoing. In his book about his time working in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos wrote that failing to convince the first lady to turn over the records of the Arkansas land deal to the Washington Post was his biggest regret.

The same pattern of concealment repeats itself through the current campaign in her refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid speeches. So the public is left wondering if she made secret promises to Wall Street or is hiding something else. The speeches are probably anodyne (politicians always praise their hosts), so why not release them?

Colin Diersing, a former student of mine who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said. When she behaves like other politicians or changes positions, “it’s seen as dishonest”, he adds. CBS anchor Scott Pelley seemed to prove Diersing’s point when he asked Clinton: “Have you always told the truth?” She gave an honest response, “I’ve always tried to, always. Always.” Pelley said she was leaving “wiggle room”. What politician wouldn’t?

Clinton distrusts the press more than any politician I have covered. In her view, journalists breach the perimeter and echo scurrilous claims about her circulated by unreliable rightwing foes. I attended a private gathering in South Carolina a month after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Only a few reporters were invited and we sat together at a luncheon where Hillary Clinton spoke. She glared down at us, launching into a diatribe about how the press had invaded the Clintons’ private life. The distrust continues.

These are not new thoughts, but they are fundamental to understanding her. Tough as she can seem, she doesn’t have rhino hide, and during her husband’s first term in the White House, according to Her Way, a critical (and excellent) investigative biography of Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, she became very depressed during the Whitewater imbroglio. A few friends and aides have told me that the email controversy has upset her as badly.

Democratic debate: Clinton blasts Sanders’ ‘artful smear campaign’ – video



Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.

Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.

It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.

Contributor

Jill Abramson

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president | Jill Abramson
In the final debate, Donald Trump blew his last best chance to present himself as a remotely credible candidate. Clinton now stands on the brink of historic power

Jill Abramson

20, Oct, 2016 @10:31 AM

Article image
Hillary Clinton: whatever happens, she's made history | Lucia Graves
Let’s be clear what the democratic nomination means. The feminist movement that has been remaking American culture – and more slowly, its politics – just put a crack in the highest, hardest ceiling of all

Lucia Graves

07, Jun, 2016 @12:12 PM

Article image
Money influences everybody. That includes Hillary Clinton
Democrats were quick to criticize Republicans who flirted with banks and big oil. Why won’t they admit that Hillary’s links are a problem too?

Trevor Timm

14, Apr, 2016 @11:00 AM

Article image
The targeting of Hillary Clinton suggests a vicious campaign ahead | Jonathan Freedland
The Republicans have shown how they want to take on the Democratic frontrunner, by framing her as a criminal. The result will be relentless negativity

Jonathan Freedland

20, Jul, 2016 @8:19 AM

Article image
For Hillary Clinton, the email nightmare is far from over | Jill Abramson
Republicans won’t let go, even though there are no charges. The Clintons are justified in feeling they are victims of an endless, rightwing campaign

Jill Abramson

07, Jul, 2016 @11:28 PM

Article image
If Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders just want to squabble, who'll listen? | Matt Laslo
Neither of the candidates looked good after a bitter, contemptuous debate in Brooklyn. Voters may soon tire of the pettiness that’s defined this primary

Matt Laslo

15, Apr, 2016 @4:22 AM

Article image
President Hillary Clinton would be historic. Let's not lose sight of that | Lucia Grave
For her detractors on the left who say they want a woman, just not this one, I have to ask: how long are you willing to wait?

Lucia Graves

23, Apr, 2016 @2:00 PM

Article image
Hillary Clinton, a 'nasty, mean enabler'? The claim is ludicrous | Jill Abramson
Donald Trump faces a gender gap of historic proportions. He’s attempting to fix it by smearing Clinton over her husband’s sexual conduct – and he deserves to fail

Jill Abramson

09, May, 2016 @5:22 PM

Article image
Can Hillary Clinton convince in the age of the goldfish? | Jill Abramson
With Donald Trump constantly offering up tidbits for voters with shrunken attention spans, Clinton’s detailed approach puts her at a serious disadvantage

Jill Abramson

17, May, 2016 @10:30 AM

Article image
Did Hillary Clinton intimidate Bill's accusers? Let's look at the evidence | Jill Abramson
Trump has tried to distract attention from his misogyny by throwing the spotlight on Jones, Willey and Broaddrick. It’s a dishonest and devious tactic

Jill Abramson

11, Oct, 2016 @4:36 PM