OPINION:
How much faith should one have put in the veracity of former President Bill Clinton when he testified last week in a deposition that he did “nothing wrong” in his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein?
I guess it depends on the meaning of “nothing” and “wrong.”
How much faith should one place in Hillary Clinton’s veracity when she testified that she “never met” Epstein, though he visited the White House 17 times?
In her deposition, Mrs. Clinton said: “As I stated in my sworn declaration on Jan. 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.”
Notice the familiar “I do not recall.” Perhaps she should look at pictures released in December by House Democrats, including a 2002 photograph of her, husband Bill Clinton and Epstein at what appears to be a social event. They appear jovial and well-acquainted.
In January 2001, on his final day in office, Mr. Clinton reached an agreement to avoid indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice regarding the Monica Lewinsky investigation. He accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license, paid a fine and admitted to a breach of professional conduct. He didn’t earn the moniker “Slick Willie” for nothing.
Look at those hot tub and other pictures that show Bill in the company of women and girls, not his wife. One of them is on his lap on a private plane, the other shows him in a pool with Ghislaine Maxwell and a young woman whose face has been blacked out. This is not what was once called “normal behavior” for a married man.
Just as banks look at one’s credit rating before deciding whether a borrower is a good risk, the Clintons’ credibility rating should be examined. Google “list of lies told by Bill and Hillary Clinton.” These don’t include the dissembling and “I don’t recall.” Listing them all might require a full newspaper page. Check out Benghazi, the bleached computer files and so much more.
Here are just a few to jog memories: Mrs. Clinton didn’t land under sniper fire in Iraq, as she said, nor was she named after Sir Edmund Hillary, as she has claimed. (Sir Hillary climbed Mount Everest after she was born.)
New York Times columnist William Safire wrote in 1996: “Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”
Safire continued: “Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker. She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.”
As for Bill Clinton, where to start? There is no end. Sexual assault charges date back to at least when he was the governor of Arkansas. He denied them all, as did his many enablers, who were made to look foolish when the truth came out. Up until then, we were told we must believe women when it came to such accusations — but for Democrats, that apparently applied only when Republicans were accused of inappropriate misconduct.
As an English literature major in college, I first encountered this line from Sir Walter Scott: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” That could serve as an epitaph for both Clintons.
• Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book, “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (Humanix Books).
Please read our comment policy before commenting.