Welcome back to the Dirt Show. Today's show is about Hillary Clinton's new hat. Hillary Clinton is

sporting a new baseball cap. I think some people are saying she's selling it and it says on it

but her emails. This is a reference to the fact that some Trump supporters and some

civil libertarians like me are saying how can you be going after former president Trump and

searching his house and doing all the things that have been done in the light of the fact that

her emails, Hillary Clinton's emails, there were more of them. They seem to have contained

more confidential material. I can't be sure of that and there was some evidence that some were

destroyed and that bleach was used on others. I am not sure of any of these facts but there's

no doubt and of course former director of the FBI, Komi, said, stated, may of course there

are the presidency when he said it, that she showed bad judgment in how she handled her emails.

And so people are saying but her emails as if that excuses Donald Trump, no, no, nobody is saying

that. Hillary, you don't seem to understand the argument. The argument is a variation of what has

come to be called what aboutism. It's a more general argument. It goes something like this when

somebody argues that somebody has done wrong, their response is yeah, but what about the other

guy? What about this is if two wrongs make a right? No, two wrongs don't make a right but when

two comparable wrongs are punished differently, then two wrongs can make a third wrong and can

make a serious wrong in a country devoted to the rule of law and governed by the equal protection

clause of the Constitution. Equal protection of the laws requires that similar acts be treated

similarly and that different acts be treated differently. And so what aboutism turns out to be a good

argument in a democracy and but her emails or what about her emails is also a good argument. It's

not an argument that says that Trump's actions, if they are proved and taking 12 boxes from

the White House to Mar-a-Lago, that's not an argument that says that's justified by the fact

...