During last night’s “Commander in Chief” forum both presidential candidates laid out their views about the future of the US military, as well as the country’s defense and security.
But neither candidate got as much criticism as event moderator Matt Lauer. The NY Times accused the anchor of unfairness, sloppiness and even sexism in his handling of the event.
The reason for the anger, originating on the left, is that he allowed a question from Navy veteran Lt. John Lester who set the adversarial mood with a question about Hillary’s reckless handling of classified material.
“As a Naval flight officer I held the top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance. And that provided me access with materials and information highly sensitive to our war fighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following the prescribed protocols I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who are and were trusted with America’s most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?”
Hillary used her fallback excuse that the documents were not marked as “classified”, one which she had reverted to previously when she explained she didn’t know what the “c” designation means. But as reported yesterday, Wikileaks has thousands of cables Hillary Clinton personally signed with a “c” that designated it as classified confidential proving she knew exactly what “c” means, proving that Hillary has lied yet again.
However, the biggest reason why Lauer’s conduct was furiously slammed by the mainstream may be the outcome of the first quasi-debate, best captured by NBC itself.
Everyone is equal in America the beautiful. Though some may be (a lot) more equal than others.
And why was Clinton wearing an ear piece? Was someone telling her what to say? Trump did not have an earpiece.
She can’t even #lie without help from a gaggle of other #liars through an earpiece,” tweeted actor James Woods.