To an impartial observer, it sure seems that way. It has been going on for 25 years, that scandal after scandal involving the Clinton's, they seem to wiggle out of any punishment for any illegal activity that they have been accused of. For whatever reason, they seem to be above the law.
The terms describing the Clinton's as being “teflon” or “like water off a duck's back” are descriptive phrases that allude to their being able to get away with shady dealings whereas, the rest of us would be prosecuted for doing those very same things.
All during his presidency, Bill Clinton (and Hillary) had the ability to fend off charges of impropriety from sexual dalliances, shady business deals (like Whitewater, Travelgate and cattle futures profits etc.) preferential treatment for friends and cronies, and lying before a grand jury (Bill did lose his law license over that), and his impeachment and then acquittal by the Senate. You'd think, after he left office, that the unethical behavior would've been reduced or done away with all together, but the Clinton's being Clinton, it has continued right up until today. It's like it is in their genes. With the revelations of the activities of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's position as Secretary of State, the sleaze factor has set in again to haunt the Clinton's and her quest to become the next president.
The Clinton supporters and apologists claim that in the latest revelations, as expounded in the best-selling book, “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer, that there is no “smoking gun”, the author agrees, but the amount of circumstantial evidence is quite extensive, and the Clinton's being lawyers, they seem to go right up to the line without getting caught “with their hands in the cookie jar”, so to speak. In Hillary's case, by deleting over 30,000 e-mails and having her own e-mail server (against the rules of the State Dep't,), during her tenure as Secretary of State, the means of getting a “smoking gun” is made much more difficult. What was she trying to hide?
With all these nefarious revelations, and with polls showing that Hillary is fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy (the latest Quinnipiac Poll showed that to be the case by a 52% to 30% margin), she still, in many quarters, is the favorite to be our next president. It seems that the phrase coined by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan that we are ”defining deviancy down”, certainly applies here. Remember, that neither Clinton ever gave up their grifter habit. Michael Goodwin, columnist of the N.Y. Post has commented on the less than honest Clinton's when he said, “On their way out of the White House door (in 2001), they grabbed goodies like thieves in the night (it was estimated that they took $180,000 worth of items, and had to return $120,000 of the loot). And the evidence is solid that he sold a pardon to Marc Rich for cash and sold pardons for votes for Hillary's first Senate race involving crooked Hasidim and violent Puerto Rican nationalists”. Not illegal (difficult to prove), but highly unethical, to say the least.
Far from being crippled by a sordid record that would have ended the political career of almost anyone else, especially Republicans, they have weathered the storms and have stayed on top and have gotten very, very rich at the same time. According to Hillary, when they left the White House they were “broke”, but since that time are now worth over $150 million. Does that pass the “smell test”?
How do they get away with all their sleaze? They seem to get a pass from the main street media (except Fox News and the Wall St. Journal) and from average Democrats who seem to block out all the negatives and will continue to be loyal Democrats no matter what the facts of wrong doing that are revealed. They will vote for Hillary no matter what. It seems that the idea of winning (the next election) at all costs trumps morality and ethical behavior in the minds of most Democrats and in the minds of the liberal media. The enemy, the Republicans, must not win, and by overlooking the “Clinton sleaze” it is justified and condoned.
So the answer to the headline of this editorial is, “YES”, the Clinton's are above the law, and the biggest losers are the people and the voters of United States of America.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
1 comment:
A number of years ago the late, famed N.Y. Times columnist, William Safire, said that Hillary Clinton was a "congenital liar", well it seems nothing has changed since then as she continues on telling one lie after another. You'd think that would be enough to derail her candidacy for president, but her partisan Democrat supporters couldn't care less, they would even vote for Tokyo Rose if she was a Democrat candidate. They want to win at any cost and by overlooking the indiscretions of Hillary, so be it, the hell with the consequences and to morality itself.
Post a Comment