“I Don’t Recall”

D.W. Wilber
|
Posted: Sep 03, 2016 12:01 AM
“I Don’t Recall”

Any criminal defense lawyer worth their salt will offer their clients a list of options when it comes to interviews with federal investigators. They normally will tell their clients to avoid testifying, but if they do testify then to tell the truth. They can also “plead the fifth” and assert their right of protection against self-incrimination. Or in the case of Hillary Clinton they can simply claim “I can’t recall.” A person can’t be proven later on by investigators to have lied if they insert a convenient lapse of memory at the appropriate time during an interview. A tactic that the trained lawyer Hillary has used repeatedly throughout her career.

During her husband’s administration when she served as First Lady, Hillary Clinton was questioned under oath during the investigation into the Whitewater scandal. According to reports about her testimony, the then First Lady had a great deal of difficulty remembering anything at all, using the “I don’t recall or I don’t remember defense” a number of times. For Clinton having a photographic memory and testifying truthfully would not be a good thing at all. Indictments almost certainly would follow !  

The strategy for Clinton has always been to lie about any potentially embarrassing issues that may come to light, and then when the initial lie starts to fall apart just compound it with another lie. And to keep doing so until people eventually become so confused that they can’t keep track of how many lies were told, and what the original lie was about in the first place. 

As part of her tactics to cover up her dishonesty she will often make subtle changes to her original lies. Change a word here, change a word there. We all remember how her unequivocal statement “I never sent any classified information” morphed into “I never sent anything marked classified”, and other variations.

Always phrasing her statements just enough to provide herself a little wiggle room so that she can create a question for investigators about her original intent. This she apparently did remarkably well during the recent FBI investigation into her use of a private e-mail server, since the FBI recommended no prosecution. Even though “intent” should have played no part in the Bureau’s decision. 

And she has shown herself to definitely be a practitioner of the old adage “if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to believe it’s the truth”. She has done so with all of the questionable activities she has been involved with throughout her career, from Whitewater, cattle futures, covering up “bimbo eruptions” involving her husband, the Benghazi attacks, and many, many others. Of course most Democrats use this tactic often. Barack Obama told us repeatedly that “we could keep our doctor, we could keep our health insurance plan” didn’t he ? 

Lying repeatedly over the many years of her long public life has become such a part of Clinton’s persona that it sometimes seems to have become difficult for her to recognize what is the truth, even when testifying under oath and facing the threat of perjury charges. But Hillary’s no dummy, she’s a trained lawyer so she simply resorts to ‘strategically invoked lapses of memory’ when confronted with particularly troublesome facts. 

In Hillary’s case she’s found it necessary to lie about practically everything she’s ever been involved with, since practically everything she’s ever been involved with has crossed the line into unethical at the least, and criminal at the worst. Including her most recent ‘pay for play’ scandal via the Clinton Foundation.

The calls for an independent special prosecutor continue to grow from Republicans in Congress and many others outside of government, since it appears the Obama Justice Department under Attorney General Loretta Lynch is not willing to represent the American people and hold Hillary Clinton accountable.

Curiously silent about the depth and breadth of evidence that is mounting against Clinton has been the so-called mainstream media. One can make the case that much of the news media is guilty of ‘aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise’ by helping to cover up for the Clintons. Would they be as gracious towards a Republican candidate with the same record ? 

While there’s been a lot of recent discussion about whether or not Clinton is experiencing some health issues that she’s been trying to cover up, the real problem with Clinton is that she continues to try to cover up her many character flaws.  Clearly it’s intended to keep from voters the fact that she’s the most dishonest and corrupt politician in American history to ever run for President of the United States.

In one regard the election of Hillary Clinton would indeed truly be an historic event. If the campaign lasted just a little longer, Hillary could be the first candidate ever to run for president while wearing a criminal ankle bracelet.