Replies

A glaring legal omission appears on the face of the tendered declaration. An omission, the absence of which amounts to and implied but inescapable admission/assertion of a prior history of unlawful/illegal conduct.

A Declaration requires not only that the witness state facts known to her to be true, but that she also state the basis upon which such facts could be known to her, i.e., how she was in a position to have heard, seen, thought, felt, or otherwise perceived the asserted fact.

The Declarant, one Hillary Rodham Clinton, states "she believes" she would have recalled what was alleged to have been discussed, had it in fact been discussed, despite an admitted, inability to recall what was actually discussed, presumably because the Declarant, correctly apprehends that had the discussion occurred as alleged, she would have been enaging in illegal acts. The only possible basis, however, for the Declarent "believing" she would have remembered such discussions, had they in fact occurred, is that she has prior experience committing illegal acts and based on that experience, she knows she tends not to forget such conduct at the same rate of mental deterioration as casual conduct not amounting to an illegal or wrongful act.

Thus, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton appears to be asserting, under oath, that she knows from prior experience that when she commits crimes of this magnitude, she remembers such facts, notwithstanding any loss of memory as to concurrent details not rising to the level of such criminal/unlawful activity.

My Dearest Mia

<< A glaring legal omission appears on the face of the tendered declaration. An omission, the absence of which amounts to and implied but inescapable admission/assertion of a prior history of unlawful/illegal conduct.

A Declaration requires not only that the witness state facts known to her to be true, but that she also state the basis upon which such facts could be known to her, i.e., how she was in a position to have heard, seen, thought, felt, or otherwise perceived the asserted fact.

The Declarant, one Hillary Rodham Clinton, states "she believes" she would have recalled what was alleged to have been discussed, had it in fact been discussed, despite an admitted, inability to recall what was actually discussed, presumably because the Declarant, correctly apprehends that had the discussion occurred as alleged, she would have been enaging in illegal acts. The only possible basis, however, for the Declarent "believing" she would have remembered such discussions, had they in fact occurred, is that she has prior experience committing illegal acts and based on that experience, she knows she tends not to forget such conduct at the same rate of mental deterioration as casual conduct not amounting to an illegal or wrongful act.

Thus, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton appears to be asserting, under oath, that she knows from prior experience that when she commits crimes of this magnitude, she remembers such facts, notwithstanding any loss of memory as to concurrent details not rising to the level of such criminal/unlawful activity. >>

[HeHeHe .... ]

What he said!

Blessings - Brian