Ken Berwitz
“Chrazy Chris” Matthews is at it again.
Here is what Matthews – the absolutely horrified Matthews – had to say about Donald Trump\’s calling Hillary Clinton an enabler:
“Trump\’s now going back and calling Hillary Clinton anenabler. I\’ve never heard anybody say that about her. This is pretty personal,and I would think, over the line, that she\’s some kind of enabler…she was shocked by Monica, and I believe that story, that she had noidea something like that was going on in the White House. And she was hurt byit. People could see the hurt in her face that – what it had done to her. Whywould this Trump guy go out and say that somehow she was in cahoots with thiswhole mess? I don\’t get that as even a reasonably honest statement…nobody I\’ve ever heard has ever said she was an enabler of Monica Lewinsky.It\’s beyond indecent, I think.”
Not even a good try, Chris.
Can Chris Matthews possibly think that anyone – other than the MSNBC “we don\’t care as long as it\’s an attack on Republicans” crowd – didn\’t notice that he zeroed in on just one of Bill Clinton\’s sexual predations and ignored the other ones?
As Chris Matthews well knows, Trump\’s attack was not specific to Monica Lewinsky, it was a general attack on her enabling of all of Bill Clinton\’s affairs over many years\’ time. Affairs which she either ignored entirely or blamed, even attacked, the alleged victims.
Want evidence? Ok. Here is what Trump said just this past weekend:
“Her defense is – she\’s got aproblem. She\’s married to a person that\’s a serious abuser and I mean, at thehighest level, and she – you know, she\’s not an innocent victim. She was theone that would go along with him in this whole game that they play. And youlook at what happened with some of the people that he took advantage of andthen she gets involved. So She\’s not like the innocent person sitting by theside with tears in her eyes She was very much involved.”
Is that specific to Monica Lewinsky? Is there any way that Chris Matthews was unaware of what he said? No and no.
And even when Trump does invoke Lewinsky, it is not just her he talks about. Here is what Trump said yesterday, during an interview with CNN\’s (hardline Democrat and Trump disliker) Chris Cuomo:
“I don\’t really care about Monica Lewinsky other than Ithink that Hillary was an enabler and a lot of things happening that wereobviously very seedy…He was impeached. He paid a massive fine on one of thecases – like a massive fine. I think his law degree was even taken away – wasn\’t able to practice law. So obviously it was a big thing. She was very much involved.”
Note to Chris Matthews (as if he didn\’t know already): that “massive fine” Trump referenced was paid to Paula Jones, not Monica Lewinsky. And Clinton\’s perjury – that\’s right, perjury – during the Jones case was what caused him to lose his law license.
Uh, Chris? Would you like to show us where Hillary Clinton ever showed one second of sympathy with Ms. Jones or ever suggested or implied that Hubby Bubba did a thing wrong? I\’ll wait.
Gee. I guess it wasn\’t just Lewinsky he was talking about.
This is what passes for intelligent commentary from Chris Matthews these days.
Not for nothing do I call him Chrazy Chris.
Oh, one other thing: After all the years of Bill Clinton\’s sexual activity, does anyone believe that Hillary Clinton would be surprised to find out he was having an affair with a White House intern? Chris Matthews\’ BS aside, I\’m guessing Ms. Clinton was about as “shocked” over Monica Lewinsky as Inspector Renault was to find out there was gambling going on at Rick\’s.
