Hillary's Defense (Leslie Fischman Certified Law Student on Behalf of Mrs. Hillary Clinton, et al.)
Dont pick on her put her on the defensive it stifles her and she loses steam cant say what shes trying to say. Rand did kinda Candy Crowley you like Candy Crowley Candy Crowley'd Barack Obama during the second debate he sat on the stool quiet. But thats just Rand, he was just doing his job, even if your not to blame if you allow someone to convince you that you are to blame or did anything wrong than that will be reflected in your response and how you respond but not to be misinterpreted as confirming that there was any wrongdoing or shortcoming on your behalf that caused anything to occur or not occur procedurally following an event in question. -What was clear is that she was made to feel bad, made to feel like some fault should be attributed to her, given her position leadership role and responsibilities she is required to assume responsibility when it is necessary to identify a responsible party. When anyone is harmed or an event such as the one in question takes place Hillary Clinton is never required to assume responsibility for acts that cause harm to others and herself, it is never ones fault when they are harmed by another or if another is harmed under their watch. In that specific case Mrs Clinton was a victim of the attack, neither contributing nor enabling the worsening of a set of circumstances leading to the attack nor should have been held responsible for any delayed response to an attack, and no delay should be interpreted as not fulfilling ones duties or be interpreted as a weak response or a response not given in full to lead to any kind of inference that there was information not being provided which was cause for a delayed response or response not accepted as a full and complete response. Does not mean one is to blame because (1) an attack occurred (2) attack was not prevented (3) attack was not promptly responded to publicly (4) full explanation was not provided - In any kind of ongoing investigation, it takes time to understand why these acts take place or why these events occur in order to better protect the future victimization or harm caused to targeted parties. Its important when responding to protect, and even better when one is able to protect without providing aid to anyone who is trying to cause harm to others or those who are responsible for those kinds of attacks on others. In Mrs Clinton's case "less is more" is arguably the most safe response, during times like these, and shows that she's conscious aware and knowledgeable about what the issues are, and what her responsibilities are, and any response was her best response, and demonstrates no failure on her part or lack of oversight concerning events that occur to which she was/is in addition considered a secondary victim under those circumstances (i.e. She was interrogated by Rand and being questionned blamed - thats how she was personally harmed, and additionally harmed by the harm caused to those upon which she was required to assume the responsibility of ensuring their safety and protection).
CC: Senator Rand Paul (Re: January 2013 Hearing featured on CSPAN and a Local DC Newspaper).