OOOPS! Did the Entire Media Miss Hillary’s Admission of Guilt?

Written by Andrew Allen on August 23, 2015

A man once said, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The same guy could have similarly said, if a Clinton makes a public admission of guilt and the media is around to hear it, does the Clinton in question make a sound?

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes, Perry Mason, or even the deductive wit of Barney Fife to figure out what all of media-land missed.

Hillary’s crew — make that posse since she and her new Snapchat account are working the cool kids circuit these days — had now blamed her private email fiasco on federal agencies because they use classifications for the information they use. Simple enough and, yes, ridiculous as well. If they are falling back on this argument then they are essentially admitting that Hillary Clinton had things on her private server that she shouldn’t have.

After all, if it were true that Hillary never saw anything sensitive on her private server, why then go into a line of defense that blames others for the sensitivity they assign to information? If nothing classified ever crossed Hillary’s server, why willingly bring
the subject into her defense at all?

Unless she did have such things on her server and she knows that in due time investigators are going to discover that she had them on her server.

It’s in effect an admission of guilt.


Andrew Allen
Andrew Allen (@aandrewallen) grew up in the American southeast and for more than two decades has worked as an information technoloigies professional in various locations around the globe. A former far-left activist, Allen became a conservative in the late 1990s following a lengthy period spent questioning his own worldview. When not working IT-related issues or traveling, Andrew Allen spends his time discovering new ways to bring the pain by exposing the idiocy of liberals and their ideology.