This past Saturday night, the true crime show 48 Hours on CBS brought on a law enforcement expert who commented on the case at hand. Yet it struck me he had inadvertently offered a disturbing insight into Barack Obama and the Benghazi scandal.
The episode covered the unsolved murder of a cruise passenger on the high seas several years ago. The main suspect is now in prison for a drug-related crime, where he cooperated with the FBI investigation. 48 Hours asked the expert, a retired agent, to analyze the inmate’s responses.
His observation, paraphrased: “Notice he never offers a direct denial. Instead he finds various ways of telling you he is a good person.”
This supports my long-held theory how to discern which defendants are innocent and which are lying through their teeth. There are several clues but the most reliable is this one. When asked by the prosecutor or the documentarian if he killed the victim, the innocent man responds: “I did not…” The guilty person answers: “I would never …”
It is amazing how many times you will hear the same script: “I would never kill my wife… I would never even hurt my wife… I loved my wife…” This even in the face of evidence which leaves no reasonable doubt.
TWICE IN HIS PRESIDENCY Barack Obama has used this obfuscatory mechanism. The first time was when the New York Times ran a story with all the inside details of how the assassination of Bin Laden was managed in the White House. It was a tale of macho heroism set in the Oval Office. The Times cited – count ‘em – “more than a dozen” unnamed sources within the administration. The article was chock full of classified and highly sensitive material.
Anyone with a knowledge of government and press knew full well that such wholesale leaking had to have been approved from the top. No President will tolerate twelve (!) members of his inner circle spilling their guts to friendly reporters for public consumption. So reporters challenged him in a press conference over why he would do something so unethical, if not downright illegal. He handled it by saying he was “offended” that someone could think him capable of such misconduct.
My theory is that the person shrinks from uttering the falsehood that he did not do the crime. Instead he tells the truth that he “would” not do the crime. He is no serial murderer with a disdain for human life. The fact that one time under extreme stress he violated his own boundaries should not define him as a murderer. True he did a terrible thing in one stupid moment, but the more important truth is that he would never do such a thing.
Before Obama, I had rarely seen a President claim he took offense to a particular suspicion. The exception was Bill Clinton when accused of bombing Iraq to turn attention away from the Whitewater hearings.
My antennae shot up because I realized I had just seen Obama’s trump card, his ultimate fallback. “How dare you suspect me of something this low?” He had let his folks talk to the Times for a puff piece and everyone knew he had, yet we had some nerve doubting his integrity. The incidental fact of his guilt did not excuse our audacity.
The second time he went there was during the foreign policy debate with Mitt Romney, when the Republican intimated Obama had knowingly covered up the events in Benghazi. Obama bristled and expressed horror that someone would tar him with so “offensive” a brush.
He timed his bristly rebuttal in such a way that he could walk right up to the edge of the audience as he spoke. Then he looked them right in the eye and offered this pearl of sanctimony: “THAT IS NOT WHAT WE DO!” It was so transparent in the moment that his soul was shouting: “WE DO NOT MEASURE UP TO WHAT WE KNOW WE SHOULD BE!”
Whether Obama will actually be in any doo-doo from the Benghazi hearings is hard to say. But one thing the testimony has shown to any honest and clear-thinking individual. This is indeed the most transparent administration in history, as promised, and we can see right through them.
Sadly, pathetically, that is what they do…