Consider this thought I had, and please expound on it if you wish...(I tried my hand at editorializing but can't sit still long enough...)
The party out of power is generally referred to as "the loyal opposition." In the case of clinton, actual crimes were uncovered, although they could not link them all the way to Bonnie and Clyde, there was a THERE, there. In Bush's case, no crimes are even alleged.
Because of this, seeking to get clinton was the "loyal opposition" thing to do...opposing wrong-doing while remaining loyal to America. In this case, the Dems and the pundits have become the DISLOYAL OPPOSITION. Going after a President for pure political advantage, when there is no THERE, there, when in fact most of the quid pro quo points squarley at IMPOTUS, can hardly be considered "loyal."
In fact, similar to the "peaceniks" who reflexively railed against America in the first days of the al-Queda war, these people could be considered to be acting in a traitorous fashion, if indeed there is no quid pro quo, as your editorial points out.
FReegards...
Because of this, seeking to get clinton was the "loyal opposition" thing to do...opposing wrong-doing while remaining loyal to America. In this case, the Dems and the pundits have become the DISLOYAL OPPOSITION. Going after a President for pure political advantage, when there is no THERE, there, when in fact most of the quid pro quo points squarley at IMPOTUS, can hardly be considered "loyal."
Couldn't have said it better myself.