People who dabble in law-breaking - this goes for perpetrators and lawyers - often have no idea what the implications of their actions or admissions are. When Michael Deaver (formerly Reagan's chief of staff) was busted for influence peddling, his first attorney was from some white shoe law firm that didn't do criminal law. The attorney claimed that Deaver shouldn't be criminally prosecuted because he had a drinking problem, and often didn't remember what he had said or done. I thought, "Hoo boy, there's only about a million guys sitting in jail right this minute who committed their special crimes while drunk. Let's see how this bullshit excuse plays out." After the kerfuffle died down, Deaver got an experienced criminal attorney to represent him.
A friend of mine who does some criminal work had a client who told her that while he did indeed run that light, the collision was really the other guy's fault, see, because if the other guy had just been paying attention and keeping a proper lookout, he would have seen that there was no way the accused was going to stop in time. See? My friend then asked him, "So, your defense is that you should be able to drive any way you want, running lights and so forth, and it's up to everyone else to look out for you?" Well, when you put it like that . . .
I suspect there are going to be any number of "Well, when you put it like that . . ." conversations going on with some folks in the Trump administration. There will probably also be a fair number of conversations that feature "But I didn't know any better!" excuses.
= new reply since forum marked as read
