This is what a liberal New York Times columnists is saying about Clinton:
It says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted. [emphasis added]
If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired …
I love this point:
In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch …
I like this one too, but there are ickier word choices than goo:
It’s quaint … Obama tried to get Hillary without the shadiness.
… Refusing to let her bring in her hit man, Sidney Blumenthal.
But in the end, Hillary’s goo got on Obama anyhow.
But she’s inevitable:
Obama was left in the awkward position of vouching for Hillary’s “steady judgment” to run an angry, violent, jittery nation on the very day that his F.B.I. director lambasted her errant judgment …
This part may be a good thing; I suspect these people are just enablers anyway:
The fallout from the email scandal has clouded the futures of longtime Hillary aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan …
“You’ve got a situation here where the woman who would be in charge of setting national security policy as president has been deemed by the F.B.I. unsuitable to safeguard and handle classified information,” Bill Savarino, a Washington lawyer specializing in security clearances, told the Times.
So many lawyers in this column, so little law.
Lastly, recall … this is a liberal columnist writing:
… The email transgression is not a one off. It’s part of a long pattern of ethical slipping and sliding, obsessive secrecy and paranoia, and collateral damage.
For my part, I have to be completely honest. I don’t even know what to make of a person like this. Clinton is like watching documentaries about prison inmates when they’re pressed to explain what motivates their actions.