Dishonorable defense of the indefensible

In light of the new and in-depth  revelations in Peter Schweizer's yet unreleased book, Clinton Cash, there is much weighing in.  The NYT has examined his claims, as have the Washington Post and Fox News.  The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming: the Clintons have been running a pay-to-play scam with countless foreign countries and corporations for years and years and, as a result, have become multi-gazillionaires.  Their proclivity for corruption is as obvious today as it was years ago, from Whitewater, Travelgate, Rose Law Firm, etc. to selling influence on the grandest scale of all.  They have for years been selling out the country that handed them the power to realize their dream of great wealth. 

Because they are leftists, they assume, as easily as they breathe, that wealthy people got that way by cheating.  The left never accepts that people become wealthy because they worked hard, invented something, provided a service, or lived simply and saved.  To them, wealth is never "earned," so it must have been misappropriated.  The Clintons' challenge was how to crack that code of misappropriation.  And they did.  Spectacularly.  In spite of Bill's dalliances and Hillary's missetps and gaffes ("we left the White House dead broke"), they have had an astonishingly lucrative scam going for a very long time.

All of the above is so well-documented, much of it before Schweizer's research, that it should be common knowledge.  It is common knowledge among the political class.  And yet the minute Schweizer, the NYT, the Post, and Fox News addressed the evidence, the usual suspects flocked to the small screen to defend the indefensible, the immoral, the wholly corrupt.  Lanny Davis is the hardest to watch; what on earth do the Clintons have on Lanny?  Then there are Carville, Podesta, Begala, the supposed-to-be-but-never objective Stephanopoulos, and the MSNBC crowd.  Even Chuck Todd, not yet confident in his own skin, has thrown his hat to their defense. All these people, and many more, are out there going to the mat for the Clintons, an odious, deceitful couple if there ever was one.  They apparently do not yet realize or care about the seriousness of the Clintons' crimes and what they mean for the nation and our future.  They rush to their defense because they are allies.  No other reason is required.

So what explains the wholesale lack of compunction in these people about defending the Clintons?  They all must be reasonably or very smart.  One can be fairly certain their parents taught them right from wrong.  They all have top-drawer educations.  When did winning become more important than the truth?  Where along their way did they lose all semblance of a moral code, their sense of right and wrong?  Was it bred out of them in college?  Did it disappear once they entered politics or joined the media?  Or did they enter politics and join the media because they were already morally compromised? 

Bottom line?  All those people who rush to defend the Clintons and to malign Schweizer and every other publication or commentator who has discussed the obvious pattern of corruption are acutely ethically challenged.  They are a collective danger to our Republic.  That media outlets continue to employ them and interview them as if their near hysterical defenses of the Clintons were legitimate is a tragedy.

In light of the new and in-depth  revelations in Peter Schweizer's yet unreleased book, Clinton Cash, there is much weighing in.  The NYT has examined his claims, as have the Washington Post and Fox News.  The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming: the Clintons have been running a pay-to-play scam with countless foreign countries and corporations for years and years and, as a result, have become multi-gazillionaires.  Their proclivity for corruption is as obvious today as it was years ago, from Whitewater, Travelgate, Rose Law Firm, etc. to selling influence on the grandest scale of all.  They have for years been selling out the country that handed them the power to realize their dream of great wealth. 

Because they are leftists, they assume, as easily as they breathe, that wealthy people got that way by cheating.  The left never accepts that people become wealthy because they worked hard, invented something, provided a service, or lived simply and saved.  To them, wealth is never "earned," so it must have been misappropriated.  The Clintons' challenge was how to crack that code of misappropriation.  And they did.  Spectacularly.  In spite of Bill's dalliances and Hillary's missetps and gaffes ("we left the White House dead broke"), they have had an astonishingly lucrative scam going for a very long time.

All of the above is so well-documented, much of it before Schweizer's research, that it should be common knowledge.  It is common knowledge among the political class.  And yet the minute Schweizer, the NYT, the Post, and Fox News addressed the evidence, the usual suspects flocked to the small screen to defend the indefensible, the immoral, the wholly corrupt.  Lanny Davis is the hardest to watch; what on earth do the Clintons have on Lanny?  Then there are Carville, Podesta, Begala, the supposed-to-be-but-never objective Stephanopoulos, and the MSNBC crowd.  Even Chuck Todd, not yet confident in his own skin, has thrown his hat to their defense. All these people, and many more, are out there going to the mat for the Clintons, an odious, deceitful couple if there ever was one.  They apparently do not yet realize or care about the seriousness of the Clintons' crimes and what they mean for the nation and our future.  They rush to their defense because they are allies.  No other reason is required.

So what explains the wholesale lack of compunction in these people about defending the Clintons?  They all must be reasonably or very smart.  One can be fairly certain their parents taught them right from wrong.  They all have top-drawer educations.  When did winning become more important than the truth?  Where along their way did they lose all semblance of a moral code, their sense of right and wrong?  Was it bred out of them in college?  Did it disappear once they entered politics or joined the media?  Or did they enter politics and join the media because they were already morally compromised? 

Bottom line?  All those people who rush to defend the Clintons and to malign Schweizer and every other publication or commentator who has discussed the obvious pattern of corruption are acutely ethically challenged.  They are a collective danger to our Republic.  That media outlets continue to employ them and interview them as if their near hysterical defenses of the Clintons were legitimate is a tragedy.