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:
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:
at least he (the lawyer) can maintain plausible deniability later on.
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.
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.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Thu Oct 05, 10:43:00 AM