I’d like to thank J. Peder Zane for his Aug. 17 column “How she lies, let me count the ways” citing his evidence for trashing Hilary Clinton’s reputation. At least he tried to back up his assertions. However, I find his evidence weak.
He started with observing that the wife of a politician accused of sexual misconduct sided with her husband and not his accusers. How shocking. Next he cited the accusations of a self-professed libertarian conservative columnist who wrote provocatively for the New York Times about how she, her friends, her staff and the White House lawyer all lied to investigators who never found anything to prosecute. Repetition of unproven accusations does not make his case. Then he objected to her inartful spinning about the FBI’s investigation of her email server.
No doubt she made a mistake, which she has admitted, both for the server itself and her mangled explanation. This may be his strongest argument, given PolitiFact rated it pants on fire, but PolitiFact also rated her as more truthful than any of her opponents.
She isn’t the ideal candidate, and her critics aren’t perfect, either. I guess they deserve each other.
Peter van Dorsten