In an interview with "60 Minutes" that aired on Sunday, Hillary Clinton actually said something that is undeniably true: "I often feel like there's the Hillary standard, and then there's the standard for everybody else." By that, Clinton meant to say that she often gets treated unfairly. Which is also true.
But then Clinton went on to claim that by "Hillary standard," she meant that she is uniquely singled out for "unfounded, inaccurate, mean-spirited attacks with no basis in truth." That should have elicited a laugh from CBS News' Scott Pelley, but instead he asked this tough follow-up question: "Why do you put yourself through it?"
Anyone who isn't blinded by partisanship can see that there is, and has been, a Hillary standard. But not one in which Hillary is the victim. It's one in which she, because of her party affiliation and gender, is held unaccountable for any wrongdoing that would doom mere mortals.
We don't need to run through the familiar litany in detail, but suffice it to say that if a Republican had been secretary of state when a U.S. ambassador was killed by terrorists in a country that the secretary's own policies had destabilized, that person would unlikely be the party's nominee.
If anyone but Hillary Clinton had set up a private foundation that took money from government officials who were at the same time seeking favors from the federal government, she'd never have survived the scandal.
And if anyone but Hillary had set up a private email server while secretary of state, for the express purpose of protecting her correspondence from Freedom of Information Act requests, well, first of all, the press would likely have exposed it while she was secretary of state.
Once the email scandal did come to light, her blatantly obvious and yet endlessly repeated lies would have sunk any other candidate a long time ago. It's also unlikely that the FBI would have concluded -- after amply demonstrated that she was grossly negligent in handling national security information -- that no "reasonable" prosecutor would want to try Clinton for her crimes. If it weren't for the Hillary standard, there would be "reasonable" prosecutors lined up around the block eager to try this case, if for no other reason that to show that no one is above the law.
Finally, if anyone but Hillary had been so greedy as to make half a million in one day giving speeches, and more than $21 million over the course of two years, to major corporations and special interests, no one would ever take her seriously when she complains about "greed."
To be sure, the "Hillary standard" isn't entirely unique to Hillary. It's more like the "Democratic standard," whereby Democrats generally are treated differently than Republicans. Democrats can lie, cheat, viciously attack opponents, be as corrupt as the day is long, and the press will play it down, ignore it, or make excuses, all while sending armies of angry reporters chasing after even the slightest perceived GOP wrongdoing.
Clinton is like Nietzsche's "Ubermensch," except in Nietzsche's version, the Ubermensch didn't whine about being above the law.
Me Here.....Oh so true. Whitewater. Rose Law Firm. Cattlegate. Hillary Care. Benghazi. E-mail. Berniegate.
Her reply is either, I don't recall or what does it matter now? She is a career criminal that so far has been given a pass on everything. So it is quite natural she would think that now she is far above and beyond both the law and Constitution. It will be interesting to watch all her massive criminal activities falling in on her.
The Liars Club Convention will be interesting to watch. The massive Clinton Criminal Empire is ending. That is the best news for America!