This exemplifies what’s wrong with “journalism” today. “Hillary Clinton or her husband, former president Bill Clinton, push the law just short of the breaking the point, only to be bailed out by Republican overreach and self-sabotage”—Alex Seitz-Wald.
There are too many problems with that statement, and they’ve been rankling me since I read it yesterday. If you assume, lack of evidence notwithstanding, that the Clintons habitually step up to the edge of the law without crossing over it (“just short of the breaking…”), so what??!!! A transgression is not a transgression without a TRANS (“across, over”). If the law is unbroken, no matter how cute the approach, it ain’t broke and needs no fix. How then do their repeated actions, near transgressions in the eye of this beholder, warrant the continual, relentless pursuit by their enemies? The answer should suggest itself…
What in blue blazes is his reference to near offense? Whillickers how might that relate to Vince Foster’s death by his own hand per the desperately anointed Ken Starr for example?! “Travelgate?”—everything’s gotta have a “-gate” in order to diminish “Watergate.” Whitewater(-gate)? Again the answer suggests itself. Where was/has been the there there?
Since they came to prominence in Arkansas, the Clintons have been a source of inspiration to some who would seek to destroy them for the offense (apparently) of usurping or pretending to power properly belonging to others. Once in the White House family fortunes were put at the disposal of those who would dispossess them of that residence, and people came to prominence in that endeavor even as prominent people stayed in the dark. Yet excepting one relationship of extramarital sex, the first time the White House was so sullied surely, there never was a prosecutable offense nor even one worthy of the time, energy and money. Nevertheless, here is a writer stating implicitly that the Clintons invite all this attention because they don’t break the law so tantalizingly that they must be “bailed out”—since when does lack of criminality require bail?!—by PulicanT “overreach.”
My assumption is that the writer either is too young to know recent history, simply has carelessly fallen prey to the rightwing blat machine or has considerable antipathy to the Clintons. Regardless, his writing either is sloppy or reprehensible.
The Clintons always have tried to keep the rude and scoffing at bay—as have all in power during my witness—only to make them more determined to seek admission. While it’s a vicious circle, the extremes to which media and opponents (often the same, sadly) have been inspired are outrageous.