Additionally, she was not indirectly defending any BC on file with the state of Hawaii. She conspicuously left that point of debate centered on what Obama, himself, posted on his own campaign website. What she called ridiculous was the challenge to the alleged fake document, not what is on file.
She cleverly maintained a neutral position, for the safety of her own job. And I would too, if I cared about my job.
Additionally, she was not indirectly defending any BC on file with the state of Hawaii. She conspicuously left that point of debate centered on what Obama, himself, posted on his own campaign website. What she called ridiculous was the challenge to the alleged fake document, not what is on file.
If you were in her position, and you knew the BC was false, would you label concerns about it ridiculous? Or would you stick strictly to the law and maintain you are not authorized to comment on its authenticity and let the legal process take its course?
After what she said, if the BC were to turn out to be false, she and the State of Hawaii would be guilty of aiding and abetting the fraud.