HIllary Clinton's interview with CNN's Brianna Keilar -- Hillary needed her spin machine to work over-time to save her ass -- Her "CONSTANT BARRAGE" line about her lack of public trust fell flat

Ms. Keilar unimpressed with Hillary's answers  & quicly pointed out that  "...  there is one major criticism looming over her: Can she be trusted by the American people?"  ---  later in  an appearance with CNN's  Jim Sciutto,  Brianna Keilar said, "'I didn’t hear a more open or transparent Hillary Clinton...."   

Vanity Fair coverage plays it straight  ---    Hillary's evasiveness and untruths largely left unedited and unchallenged  ---  BUT ---  Did they have to be ?

CNN’s Brianna Keiler sat down with Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton earlier this week in what was Mrs. Clinton’s first televised interview since she officially annonced being a 2016 presidential candidate.

WHAT BRIANNA KEILAR  SAID ON CNN'S "SITUATION ROOM" SHORTLY AFTER HER HILLARY INTERVIEW

In what was Hillary Clinton’s first televised interview since she became a 2016 presidential candidate. Brianna Keilar brought up several issues ranging from the candidate's strained relationship with the press to her thoughts on whether the American people trust her.  In a later appearance on CNN's "The Situation Room," Keilar said that Clinton’s pushback to her questions did not make her seem more forthcoming than she had been before.

Keilar told Jim Sciutto,   “  'I didn’t hear a more open or transparent Hillary Clinton....   I asked her why Bernie Sanders is garnering this support and enthusiasm you don’t seem to among Democrats. She wouldn’t engage on that....'    Keilar went on to say that throughout the interview, Clinton either 'wouldn’t engage' on topics like the dynastic possibility of running against Jeb Bush, and that she was quick to move on from issues like her press relationship, the email scandal, or the dealings of the Clinton Foundation.....   'She insists that voters should and do trust her, but at the same time we see in our recent poll that nearly 6 in 10 Americans say they don’t find her honest or trustworthy,' Keilar said.  'Credibility is so key to leadership, and while she’s really blaming Republicans on this, this is actually a recent development we have seen on the controversies plaguing her.' ... "    (See  "CNN’s Brianna Keilar ‘Didn’t Hear a More Open or Transparent Hillary Clinton’ in Interview"  by Ken Meyer, 7/7/15,  Mediaite    [With video link of Sciutto-Keilar interview] [http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-brianna-keilar-didnt-hear-a-more-open-or-transparent-hillary-clinton-in-interview/]).

VANITY FAIR COVERAGE IS SOMEWHAT FAIR

Without a doubt, Hillary's media machine had to work very hard to pull this chestnut out of the fire.
In a post-interview article appearing in Vanity Fair, Tina Nguyen  said,  "[Hillary Clinton] said a 'constant barrage of attacks' from the right was responsible for her image...." (See  "Hillary Clinton in First TV Interview: 'People Should and Do Trust Me' ” by Tina Nguyen, 7/7/15,  Vanity Fair  [http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/hillary-clinton-first-interview-cnn-trust]).  At first blush, the Nguyen article looks like the routine servile effort by a liberal acolyte in the MSM buffing the Hillary Clinton apple to a high gloss.  Then again, maybe not.

WHAT THE VANITY FAIR ARTICLE SHOWED ABOUT CLINTON'S INTERVIEW ON CNN

Tina Nguten and Vanity Fair actually played it all pretty straight.  Ms. Nguyen went on to say,  "On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton sat down with CNN for her long-awaited first interview with the national press, and addressed several criticisms lobbed her way ever since she began her presidential campaign. But really, as Brianna Keilar pointed out, there is one major criticism looming over her: Can she be trusted by the American people?...   Citing a CNN/ORC poll that found 'nearly 6 in 10 Americans say they don’t believe that [Clinton is] honest and trustworthy,'  Keilar asked the former secretary of state why she should have their trust, given the numerous scandals surrounding her—specifically, the use of a private e-mail server during her time in the State Department, and the practices of the Clinton Foundation...."   THAT PRETTY MUCH LAYS IT  OUT THERE PRETTY SUCCINCTLY.

Here's how Nguyen and VF handled Hillary Clinton's response:  "Labeling those questions as “the kind of constant barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the right,” Clinton said that she has withstood that kind of criticism during her time as First Lady and the senator from New York, and can certainly do so now. “I have every confidence that during the course of this campaign people are going to know who will fight for them, who will be there when they need them and that’s the kind of person I am,” she told Keilar....  'Trusting someone to fight for them and trusting someone, these are two different things.'..."

According to the VF coverage,  Keilar responded, “Do you see any role that you’ve had in the sentiment that we’ve seen, where people are questioning whether you’re trustworthy?”
Here's how Tina Nguyen and Vanity Fair handled Hillary's "money shot":    "Clinton responded:   Well, they—people should and do trust me. And I have every confidence that that will be the outcome of this election. I cannot decide what the attacks on me will be, no matter how unfounded. And I’m well aware of the fact that it’s your job to raise those and we’ll do our best to respond to them. But I think what people talk to me about—and that’s all I can go on—is the literally thousands of people that I’ve seen in the course of this campaign. They want to know what I’m going to do for the economy, what I’m going to do for education, what I’m going to do for health care. And they trust me to have a plan and to be committed to carrying out that plan and they should, because I will...."

Neither Keilar, Nguyen, CNN nor Vanity Fair immediately pointed out either Mrs. Clinton's false premises or her massive evasion.  ---   However, given the nature of the question(s) and the quality of  the  answers Clinton was reported to have given, was there really any need to do so ?

When all is said and done, Hillary's woodsy owl bulging eyes are readily recognizable as "lying eyes"....  Even more obvious, is the patent nonsense of trying to sell the notion that a question like the one asked by Brianna Keilar about Hillary's trustworthiness and truthfulness was the product of some Republican barrage.  Is Hillary implying that CNN and Brianna Keilar are supposed to have been a part of that constant GOP barrage ?  Wasn't Brianna Keilar hand-picked and vetted by the Clinton folks to do the first Clinton TV interview of the campaign ?