Topic: Washington Examiner
The Washington Examiner exhibits a flare-up of Clinton Derangement Syndrome in a Jan. 22 editorial. Citing reasons to oppose the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, the Examiner asserts:
After all, even the liberal New York Observer editorialized a few years ago that Clinton was “unfit for elective office." Does nobody in the Senate care that she was tied to sleazy Hollywood fund-raising on her behalf by multiple-felon Peter Paul? Was it not even worth reviewing the 1995 deposition in which an independent counsel cited her for false statements under oath?
Paul, of course, is the same guy who's hurling various charges against the Clintons in a bid to keep his own felonious butt out of jail for unrelated sleaziness. Of course, Paul wasn't a felon at the time of his Clinton fundraising. We have to wonder, though: Is the Examiner following in WorldNetDaily's footsteps in believing every accusation Paul makes about the Clintons even though he is a "multiple-felon"?
And the "false statements under oath" is an apparent reference to Travelgate. The Examiner conveniently forgets to mention what the independent counsel also said about those statements: "[A]bsent persuasive, corroborated, and admissible evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false."
Travelgate, by the way, is among the more bogus of the supposed Clinton scandals, since the Travel Office employees worked at the pleasure of the president, who could fire them at will, and there was, in fact, evidence of financial mismanagement in the office (even if Billy Dale was acquitted).