Corruption standards at the Times could hurt Hillary

The Captain points out how badly the Times has stretched trying to tie the White House to Abramoff. This is interesting because of what it could mean to Hillary's run for the White House. As we saw with the Times' demands for an investigation of the Plame "leaks", they do a poor job of imagining how precedents can bite back.

If this ridiculously tenuous connection to Bush is supposed to "prove" corruption, what are we to conclude from the evidence of corruption during the Clinton administration? While the examples are numerous, the payoff to Webb Hubbell should suffice.

After Hubbell reached a plea agreement which required him to cooperate with prosecutors, he spent a week at the White House during which Clinton aides called supporters all over the country to line up cash gifts for him. Eventually, the Clintons lined up almost a million dollars in payments to Hubbell for which he did nothing substantive. Webb had the most financially lucrative year of his life after being indicted and pleading guilty to a felony.

Using the Times' current standards for determing corruption, the conclusion is inescapable that both of the Clintons are personally guilty of obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt.