ShareThis Page
Kane, Clinton display similar strategies |

Kane, Clinton display similar strategies

| Saturday, November 28, 2015 9:00 p.m

Regarding attorney Gerald Shargel’s innocent memory lapse excuse, as noted in the editorial “The Kane Chronicles: Memory slacker?” : This is the same excuse Hillary Clinton is using for her ‘memory lapse’ regarding her use of a personal email server and her signing a document that required her to keep classified information secret.

Kane’s attorney, Mr. Shargel, would have the public “cut her (Kathleen Kane) a little slack”. You state: “It now will be up to a jury to decide if Kathleen Kane’s memory lapse was one of innocence, one of convenience or one of contrivance.” So too, are Clinton’s attorneys and handlers attempting to frame her actions as innocent mistakes.

You failed to raise considerations regarding professional training, duty and responsibility, let alone personal ethics and morality. Both Kane and Clinton are trained attorneys at law and can be presumed to know that legal proceedings and secret and/or classified information is at least confidential and should not be compromised.

As legal experts, they can be presumed to know what they’ve signed – especially legal & government documents. As individuals who have earned law

degrees both Kane and Clinton must bear full responsibility for their acts. There is no memory lapse, there is no slack! The full weight of the law

must be applied just as it would be applied to non-public persons.

Dan Campbell


Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.