Posted on 05/29/2015 8:21:17 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
Lets say, just for kicks, you murdered your husband (or wife). Your neighbors have been suspicious ever since your nightly arguments suddenly stopped, right around the time you put something large in your trunk and drove off in the middle of the night. Now they see you driving his car and putting his suits and golf clubs up for sale on eBay. The police find your explanations implausible and contradictory, and then you tell the cops to direct all future questions to your lawyer.
The good news is that you have fans. Some neighbors think youre the cats pajamas. They come to you and say they want to defend you against this terrible accusation. What should you tell them to say on your behalf?
Frankly, I dont know what you should say, but I do have a good sense of what you shouldnt say: Tell them theres no smoking gun.
You see, when people suspect youve committed a crime, insisting that theres no smoking gun is almost, but not quite, an admission of guilt. It is certainly very, very far from a declaration of innocence.
I didnt do it! thats a declaration of innocence.
Theres no smoking gun! thats closer to, Youll never prove it, nyah, nyah.
The origin of the phrase smoking gun comes from a Sherlock Holmes story, The Adventure of the Gloria Scott. In Arthur Conan Doyles tale, an imposter posing as a ships chaplain commits murder. We rushed on into the captains cabin . . . there he lay with his brains smeared over the chart of the Atlantic . . . while the chaplain stood with a smoking pistol in his hand at his elbow.
Figuratively, when you have a smoking gun, theres no need for an investigation; you know for sure the culprit is guilty. But if the chaplain had thrown the gun out the porthole just in time, Holmes would not say, Well, theres no smoking gun. This shall have to remain a mystery for all time. Oh, and lets give the chaplain here the benefit of the doubt.
I bring this up because every time theres a new revelation about the unseemly practices of the Clintons, every time a new trough of documents or fresh disclosures come to light, scads of news outlets and Clinton spinners insist that theres no smoking gun proving beyond all doubt that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation did anything wrong.
The guy who set the bar so low that its basically stuck in the mud was ABC News George Stephanopoulos. In a now-infamous interview with Peter Schweizer, author of the investigatory exposé Clinton Cash, Stephanopoulos grilled Schweizer about his partisan conflicts of interest.
Despite Stephanopouloss hostile tone, it was perfectly proper to note that Schweizer worked for George W. Bush as a speechwriter for a few months. The irony, of course, was that Stephanopoulos worked in a far higher position, for far longer, for the Clintons which Stephanopoulos did not mention. Nor did he disclose the fact that he was a donor to the very Clinton Foundation that was the focus of Schweizers book.
Since that story broke, thanks to the Washington Free Beacon, Stephanopoulos has apologized at least three times for his actions.
What he hasnt apologized for is his yeomans work making a smoking gun the new burden of proof.
When the State Department released a sliver of a fraction of the e-mails Hillary Clinton hadnt already deleted from her private stealth server, the Daily Beast ran a story with the headline Sorry, GOP, Theres No Smoking Gun In Hillary Clintons Benghazi Emails. Ah yes, because the relevant news is whatevers bad for Republicans.
This week, the International Business Times reported that thenSecretary of State Hillary Clinton approved a huge spike in arms sales to repressive countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, and that weapons contractors paid Bill Clinton huge sums for speeches at around the same time the State Department was approving their arms deals. Slate noted that the IBT piece doesnt reveal any smoking-gun evidence of a corrupt quid-pro-quo transaction.
Now, obviously, if there is no smoking-gun proof of wrongdoing, the press should report that. But it might also note that many politicians and public figures have been prosecuted and convicted without the benefit of a smoking gun. Just ask former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell or, for that matter, Martha Stewart. The lack of a smoking gun in Chris Christies Bridgegate scandal hardly deterred the media mob.
Only in the Clintonverse could the lack of a smoking gun be touted as proof of innocence.
You asked that question...
The answer is YES.
Barack Hussein Obama.
Media? Standards? I thought they were only interested in sympathetic ideology and the extent to which they could push that into some sweeps ratings periods.
That 90% of Foundation money not going to any charity related expenditures is for Bubba’s “Over Head”.
Yes, Obama because he is black.
The cruz of the problem - MSM has the same ethical standards as the Clintons.
I can think of one.
The Clintoons IS what they IS.
Priceless. It is like trying to raise the corpse of Vladimir Lenin to arms.
I see what you did there. :0)
Yes - Our Lord and Savior, The Obama, The Messiah, The Won.
Jack the Ripper and Adolf Hitler come to mind (in no particular order).
Does anyone have a lower ethical standard than the Clintons?
It’s very hard to go lower than a Clinton ,LOL
A 'Freudian truth' ... Cruz is the solution to the crux of the problem!
Crux. Unless there is a political reference I missed.
TED CRUZ 2016
https://www.tedcruz.org/
Don’t forget the Kennedy clan!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.