I think she is right (”race” is part of the issue concerning her ethics charges), but not in the manner that she believes it to be.
Like Charlie Rangel, she has an extreme sense of arrogant entitlement about herself, as if the means justifies the ends simply because she wants to present the ends she seeks as noble.
How can she have such a self-serving view, self-serving sense of privilege about herself, if it was never granted to her, over the years, by her peers in Congress in the first place?
Were she and Rangel both victims of reverse discrimination, where, over many years, their ethical slights were intentionally ignored, by their peers, so their peers could avoid appearing to offend them, because of their race?
They certainly display all the inappropriate sense of arrogance and victim-hood about their ethics problems that someone with whom such issues were always allowed to be forgiven in the past would quite naturally now display, when their peers finally quit letting them slide.
Thanks