« Home | Is it just me? » | Clear Verbiage Left Behind Act » | Pulling wings off of flies... » | A Rose By Any Other Name » | Back and out of the loop... » | kevvyd is not dead... » | Ma, they aren't listening to the phone anymore... ... » | Improvised Explosive Opportunity » | So where are we now? » | Oh Well, At Least They Beat Turkey »

Plausible deniability?

I just listened to the web cast of Mark Foley's lawyer and I'm amused at the tactic he's using. Here is the statement as everyone has heard it:
He reiterates unequivocally he has never had sexual contact with a minor

which might not be expressly true, if these comments made on the now-published internet chat session are legitimate.

However, if the lawyer actually said this:
He reiterates unequivocally he has never had sexual contact with a miner

at least he (the lawyer) can maintain plausible deniability later on.

That is an interesting way of looking at that. Kids these days try this or similar tactics all the time on teachers, though unsuccuessfully.

This is hilarious. FOXNews had a graphic which referred to Foley as a Democrat, which admittedly could be a simple error. Later, they had three pundits discussing the scandal, and the pundits called him a Democrat. Less likely to be a simple error, more likely to be an intentional error.

Sean Hannity blames Clinton for this, of course. Clinton had sex with a 22-year old woman, whereas Foley tried to have sex with a 17 year old child. Definitely the same thing.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link