The plight of Hillary Clinton’s “email conduct” defenders
brings to mind my efforts as a criminal defense attorney obligated to support a
defendant at sentencing by “putting lipstick on the pig”. The effort has to be made but one certainly
doesn’t expect it to be effective. Some
examples:
Over the
Labor Day weekend, Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine said Hillary Clinton’s
failure to recognize that her emails, sent and received, contained “classified”
(secret) information was understandable.
“I know,” the Virginia Senator remarked, “from my experiences on Capitol
Hill seeing much classified material that it can be hard to distinguish between
what is and what isn’t”.
Of course. But the
Democratic candidate for President told the FBI that emails dealing with
prospective drone targeting of terrorists in Afghanistan didn’t raise security
concerns because, although they were marked with a “(C)”, she thought that that
was simply a paragraph indicator. Oh,
my! Didn’t the content suggest something
else? [In actuality, it meant “classified”].
Nice try, Senator Kaine, a fellow attorney, but the
lipstick is already smeared.
On the same day, former Obama Administration official Tom
Perez came to Mrs. Clinton’s defense by observing that security classifications
were sometimes incorrectly made.
Ok. So if it’s
possible that Hillary Clinton might be telling the truth sometimes, does that
mean she’s not a liar? And to use
another analogy, if I can show you that a person is involved in ten events “generating
smoke” and that in one of those occasions there was actually no fire, that’s
proof that there’s no fire involved in the others, either. Right?
Sure…
The lipstick is no longer visible on the poor pig.
No comments:
Post a Comment