Ann Althouse, seconded by the Passive-Aggressive one, poo-pooed the notion that the Clintons are sociopaths in their Florida and Michigan grandstanding. They're just being lawyers - preparing to litigate. There is one obvious problem with that argument, as a reader explains:
Althouse is right to an extent. Often in ligitation, if the rules help you, they are iron clad, and if they don't, you look for reasons why they shouldn't apply. But that's not what's going on here.
To use the ligitation analogy, if you walk in to court espousing the exact opposite position of an earlier stated position, you lose, plain and simple. Your opponent calls it an admission, throws it in your face, and probably moves for sanctions. The judge accepts the earlier position as the truth and the later position an obvious attempt to impose a different standard of liability than what everyone agreed to before the litigation (or at an earlier point in the litigation). Worst of all, you lose all credibility with the judge, which any litigator will tell you is the most important weapon in your arsenal. By Ann's analogy, Clinton loses (and gets sanctioned).Lord knows I'd like to litigate that case.