The Scandal Of Scandal

We'll never hear the end of the Clinton email "scandal" and of the supposed grift involving the Clinton Foundation. In part, admittedly, it's because of poor handling of the issues from the outset by the Clinton camp. Mainly, though, it's the usual cynical attempts to discredit them by a party willing to do and say anything to accomplish it.

The latest, reported with the usual "we must be balanced" mainstream media and the "balance? We don't need no stinking balance" right-wing media, suggesting there were special priveleges granted to donors, is, like the rest, much ado about very little. Here's a good summary:

... Take, for example, the imbroglio over newly released e-mails regarding interactions between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when Clinton was secretary of state. These exchanges, primarily between Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin and Clinton Foundation top honcho Doug Band, have become Exhibit A in efforts to brand Clinton as a corrupt figure and the Foundation as a pay-for-play operation. The evidence, however, speaks to a different reality... 

... So what happened? Abedin told Band she’d reach out to Jeffrey Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs at the time. Yet, according to a Washington Post article, Feltman says he never met or spoke to Chagoury, and “No one ever told me he was seeking me out.”  

So: Clinton Foundation asks for help with donor, and doesn’t get it...

Charlie, as usual, get to the meat of it, too, worth reading in full:

 ...Well, that's certainly a smoking popgun right there. The crown prince of Bahrain needs to buy access to the Secretary of State of the United States of We'll Buy Your Oil? How would you like to prove that in the Court of Public Ridicule? It also is to be noted that the  AP discovered an e-mail in which Muhammad Yunis was seeking an audience. Yunis, of course, won a Nobel Prize for inventing the microloan. Dens of thieves!...

I have to admit I feel a bit whipsawed by Hillary. One day I'm angry at how the media are flogging b.s. like the above, because it's easier to be simplistic than to stand up and say what's what. On some other days, I'm annoyed by something Hillary did or didn't say.

Sometimes I consider it to be, as everyone says, "baggage." Mostly, though, I see the cynicism of the attacks and the laziness and fecklessness of the press. "Liberal" press? Hardly. Lazy, scared, corrupted by the profit-through-eyeballs motive. More like.

The undeniable fact, though, is that this stuff has wounded her. Insights like those referenced above will be ignored by or completely lost upon committed haters, the well-Foxified, and the "Trump says what's on his mind and I don't care if there's no mind there" crowd. The latter will never get past it. The question is how many of the Bernie folks and the self-righteous and narcissistic far left will refuse to see it, too.

[Image source]