Throughout Bill and Hillary Clintons’ four decades of public life, their apologists have met every new scandal with the same alibi ad nauseam: You have no direct proof of guilt. In some cases, of course, that defense was subsequently refuted with direct evidence. More often, though, evidence of Clintonian malfeasance has remained the more murky, suspicious variety. To the Clintons and their overextended army of apologists, that somehow suggests their innocence.
In our judicial system as well as the court of public opinion, however, the Clintons’ trademark evasions and suspicious behavior toward relevant evidence create an inference of guilt.