Terry McAuliffe, Clinton money man, makes ludicrous stab at morals

OPINION:

Terry McAuliffe, the power broker of Bill Clintondom — the snake oil salesman of the late 1990s-to-early-2000s timeframe, whose oily face and fast-talking tongue made frequent appearances on televised news to defend all-things-Democrat — was out and about this past weekend telling MSNBC news watchers how immorally and horribly his old presidential pal treated Monica Lewinsky.

Well, isn’t that special. But McAuliffe speaking of morals is like watching O.J. pull on a too-tight leather glove. Something just seems painfully amiss.

Here’s what he said, when asked if Clinton should’ve resigned over the Lewinsky affair — the big Lewinsky lie — a couple decades ago.

“This was 25 years ago, it was difficult — different standards,” McAuliffe said, as Breitbart noted. “[A]t the time we dealt with this 25 years ago, it wasn’t the standards we have today. I think if it happened today, I don’t think you’d be having the same argument that would go on with the new #MeToo movement. But 25 years ago, as I say, it was a different standard.”

Umm, no. Actually, the standard was pretty much the same 25 years ago as it is today. It’s a standard that says thou shalt not commit adultery — thou shalt not commit false witness.

Don’t lie; don’t cheat. Same standard during Bill Clinton’s time as now.

But ’lest we forget: This is the same McAuliffe who served as Clinton’s right-hand man — his money-maker, his go-to for self-proclaimed “Godzilla”-like funding. He helped Clinton get elected, then re-elected, and even footed $1.35 million for Bill and Hillary to buy their home in New York in 1999 — at a time “when the Clintons were burdened by legal debts from the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal and Hillary needed to establish residency for a U.S. Senate run from the Empire State,” as Watchdog wrote.

In other words: If McAuliffe really wanted to send a message to Bill about his behavior, seems like 1999 would’ve been opportune — seems like it would’ve been a good time to stop the enabling. It seems like saying no, too, to helping Hillary pretend she was a New Yawker from way back just so she could seek the Senate and take the next politically expedient power step would’ve been a similarly moral message to send at that time. 

But McAuliffe didn’t take the high horse then. Now?

He’s trying to sell a story of morality and concerned conscience.

“I think it was a horrible thing 25 years ago,” he said, of the way the Clintons “victimized” Lewinsky, as the interviewer put it. “As you know, we’re very good friends. I told the president back then it was a horrible thing. I wrote about it in my book. He paid a horrible price. … But clearly the behavior was horrible and wrong, and I told the president it was wrong.”

Well bully for McAuliffe. But let’s not forget that while he was supposedly busy telling Clinton how “horrible and wrong” was his behavior, he was also busy raking in the dough to help the family rise in political rankings.

And those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Our country has enough corrupt politicians, yes?

It’s bad enough the American public had to endure Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging lies about Lewinsky, and Hillary’s shrill “what difference does it make” questioning of truth during testimony about Benghazi — as well as all the ongoing shadows about Clinton Foundation funding, email servers and the handling of sensitive classified information.

But having to stomach McAuliffe pretend he was a moral compass for the Clintons is too much.

McAuliffe is inextricably linked with the Clintons, and the Clintons are inextricably linked with scandal. And keeping it simple: If A is to B and B is to C, then A is to C.

• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at cchumley@washingtontimes.com or on Twitter, @ckchumley.