And unless I missed it, the article didn’t even touch on him palling around with pedophile predator Jeffrey Epstein on his jet and island.
Has Clinton ever tried to explain that one away, or has the media just agreed not to ask him?
I noticed when Monica Lewinsky spoke out against the Clintons a couple of years ago, the media doing reports on that acted like the Clintons inhabited a parallel universe. Lewinsky criticized them and said she was speaking out since Hillary might run again, but there was no mention even of anything like “we reached out to the Clintons for comment...”
It was like the media wanted to pretend it was all old news and didn’t want to viewers mulling on the words “the Clintons had no comment” or “Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t get back to us.”
That type of response would indicate a fear of commenting, and the media is obliged to help the Clintons avoid leaving that impression.
Bill Clinton should be as reluctant to show his face by now on a public stage as Anthony Weiner. It’s almost hard to believe that the Clintons could go back to the White House, with all their scandals, along with Huma with her husband and conflicts of interest, and then there’s the in-laws, namely Chelsea’s father-in-law. There’s probably a lot more too.
Reported on Full Measure that he would be appearing in New Hamster tomorrow.
Those cards are yet to be played. But they're in his [Trumps] considerably strong hand in this game. Trump no doubt is holding some powerful Trump cards. Please excuse the obvious.
It's not his face that Weiner got in trouble for showing, but his namesake body part.
Likewise, Bill Clinton's troubles did not revolve around his grin, but what he pressured women to do to *his* body part.