The Clinton Saga Continues… Will It Ever End?

Maybe sooner than anyone thinks.  Coming from the Sensible Conservative, that sentiment may be more wishful thinking than realistic expectations. 

Sure, like the seemingly innumerable scandals (Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, etc.) that have dogged both Hillary and Bill, the latest uproar over the possible quid pro quo involving Clinton Foundation contributions and the ex-president’s foreign speech fees may blow over.  But maybe not this time.

Consider that the main assault on the “appearance of impropriety” is not coming from the right.  Yes, the catalyst was, in part, an as-yet unpublished catalogue of suspicious Clinton transactions written by a conservative.  But the media focus has come from liberal publications, The New York Times and the Washington Post, in particular. 

Why now, you might ask?  Is the liberal media casting a baleful eye on the Clintons’ machinations where previously blindness had been the preferred affectation?  Has the accumulation of episodes involving Benghazi stonewalling, email defiance and now, the (at least) questionable foundation funding simply become too much to defend?  Do certain media outlets still possess some semblance of integrity which not even left wing bias will allow them to stomach the Clintons any longer?

We shall see.  If so, “mainstream” press coverage will no longer grant Hillary Clinton fawning attention as the presumptive Democratic nominee and first female American president.  This can only help the GOP nominee.  With a Republican victory next November, the Clintons will finally, one hopes, be relegated to a political trash heap.

************

A lawyer’s observation:

Mrs. Clinton’s defenders attack suggestions of “quid pro quo” by saying that there’s not a shred of evidence to support that.

They misconstrue what constitutes evidence.  A smoking gun is not necessary.  Criminal defendants, as a matter of fact, are frequently convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” based solely on circumstantial evidence.  (“If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s likely to be one.”)

It’s entirely reasonably to infer - to conclude – that there’s a connection between the receipt of money and the performance of deeds desired by the source of that money... especially when there are numerous such events.  The old fashioned term “corruption” is applicable.