… Nous voulons dire effectivement : pas le Nixon de la grande politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re des ann\u00e9es 1969-1973 (d\u00e9tente avec l’URSS, limitation des armements, Chine), mais le Nixon des scandales et, finalement, du Watergate. C’est la question que pose le fut\u00e9 et bien inform\u00e9 Wesley Pruden, du Washington Times<\/em>, le 11 mars 2016<\/a>. Il pr\u00e9sente d’abord ce moment qu’Hillary Clinton croyait impossible, où un journaliste, – celui-l\u00e0 d’une chaîne anonyme, pas un des grands professionnels des grands m\u00e9dias qui ne se salissent pas la voix avec des questions inconvenantes, – pose effectivement la question incroyablement inconvenante, lors du d\u00e9bat des deux candidats d\u00e9mocrates le 10 mars : \u00ab\u00a0Abandonnerez-vous la course \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sidence si vous \u00eates impliqu\u00e9e ?\u00a0\u00bb, et elle, offusqu\u00e9e, agac\u00e9e, glac\u00e9e, pinc\u00e9e mais coinc\u00e9e… « Ce n’\u00e9tait pas le meilleur choix<\/em> [d’envoyer ces e-mails], j’ai fait une erreur. Mais ce n’\u00e9tait pas interdit. Ce n’\u00e9tait en aucune fa\u00e7on non-autoris\u00e9 et comme je l’ai dit et comme cela apparaît d\u00e9sormais, nombre de pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs et beaucoup d’autres gens dans le gouvernement ont fait la m\u00eame chose<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Cette r\u00e9ponse qui n’en est pas une ne convainc pas du tout Pruden, qui rappelle \u00e0 Hillary qu’elle est avocate et qu’elle sait donc parfaitement que sa r\u00e9ponse ne tient pas une seconde, du point de vue juridique. Pruden pr\u00e9f\u00e8re alors passer \u00e0 l’essentiel qui est de dire : si rien n’est fait d’ici l’\u00e9lection et que Clinton l’emporte, sa pr\u00e9sidence va \u00eatre un enfer, un Watergate d\u00e8s le d\u00e9but … Le meilleur \u00ab\u00a0cadeau\u00a0\u00bb qu’Obama puisse faire \u00e0 Clinton, c’est un pardon pr\u00e9sidentiel (on en parle \u00e0 Washington), comme Ford fit pour Nixon peu apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9mission d’août 1974, et alors qu’il lui avait succ\u00e9d\u00e9 depuis quelques semaines<\/strong>. Il faudrait beaucoup d’amiti\u00e9 de la part d’Obama, ce dont il ne semble pas tr\u00e8s embarrass\u00e9 ; et puis, enfin, d’autre part hein, une pr\u00e9sidente commen\u00e7ant sa pr\u00e9sidence par un \u00ab\u00a0pardon pr\u00e9sidentiel\u00a0\u00bb de son pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseur, et cela pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 comme \u00ab\u00a0la meilleure solution\u00a0\u00bb – sacr\u00e9ment dr\u00f4le d’\u00e9poque, et autant pour la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 et l’autorit\u00e9 de l’intronis\u00e9e….<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n « … This was a misleading answer, as Hillary<\/a> the lawyer understood well. Using a private email server was discouraged and as secretary of State she could bend rules. The laws governing national security are not made to measure intent, but to punish the act, and others have paid painfully for less. The rest of the country gets it, as voters in Michigan demonstrated this week, even if the smart guys in Washington say they don’t. She would have been left for dead long ago but for the fortunate alignment of the stars that guide partisan affairs in the nation’s capital. Who else could have stumbled and staggered on, bumbling and lumbering toward the goal, surviving every perception that she gives greed a bad name<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Never has an inevitable nominee had so much scandal and titillation to survive. The Democrats spent the winter trying to recruit a challenger, but no luck. Joe Biden yearned to give her a run for her money, ultimately decided that he could never run that fast and that far, and then regretted that he hadn’t given her a run for it, anyway. It’s safe enough for the liberal media to make Bernie Sanders the needed and convenient foil in Hillary<\/a>‘s way. A Socialist, uppercase and all, is a serious threat only in a boutique like Vermont, and everywhere else he’s a willing palooka with whom she can spar harmlessly. Bernie gets an occasional opening but doesn’t recognize it, and she gets away unscathed. That’s what sparring partners are for<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Nevertheless, when more than a hundred FBI agents are chasing you, you can never discount the possibility that one of them might catch you. The latest buzz in Washington is that maybe only Barack Obama can save her, with a pardon in the way that Gerald Ford saved Richard Nixon<\/a> in 197<\/em>[4]. Parallels accumulate. Not to pardon her, as Matthew Continetti observes in the Washington Free Beacon, risks dooming the nation to \u00ab\u00a0a long national nightmare\u00a0\u00bb like the one President Ford saved us from, with media leaks, tell-all books, more grand juries, and indictments of her confederates. Mr. Obama might even emerge as the only hero of the fray, pleasing Hillary<\/a>‘s friends for saving her from the final ignominy, and pleasing conservatives for at last putting the Clintons on ice for good and proper<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Mis en ligne le 12 mars 2016 \u00e0 13H16<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Hillary est-elle le Nixon-Watergate de notre temps ? … Nous voulons dire effectivement : pas le Nixon de la grande politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re des ann\u00e9es 1969-1973 (d\u00e9tente avec l’URSS, limitation des armements, Chine), mais le Nixon des scandales et, finalement, du Watergate. C’est la question que pose le fut\u00e9 et bien inform\u00e9 Wesley Pruden, du Washington… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[934,17320,3278,13600,12999,3340,17387],"class_list":["post-76465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-breves-de-crise","tag-clinton","tag-emailgate","tag-hillary","tag-pardon","tag-presidentiel","tag-presidentielles","tag-prudent"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76465"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76465\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n