Surprise, surprise… L’une des pointes et des plumes les plus affut\u00e9es et les plus richement r\u00e9tribu\u00e9es du journalisme le plus fondamentalement washingtonien et am\u00e9ricaniste, l’une des vedettes de l’establishment<\/em>, Bob Woodward qui pourrait porter le titre de noblesse d’influence de \u00ab\u00a0baron <\/em>du Watergate\u00a0\u00bb attaque Hillary Clinton \u00e0 propos de la Clinton Foundation<\/em>. Il parle de \u00ab\u00a0scandale\u00a0\u00bb et d’une \u00ab\u00a0corruption\u00a0\u00bb consid\u00e9rable<\/strong>. Le propos fut \u00e9mis d’une mani\u00e8re extr\u00eamement fortuite, lors d’un entretien avec Chris Wallace (mod\u00e9rateur du troisi\u00e8me d\u00e9bat pr\u00e9sidentiel), sur Fox.News-Sunday <\/em>; c’est de cette fa\u00e7on <\/em>que les mots deviennent soudain violents, comme par inadvertance. Voici le texte que donne le 24 octobre<\/a> ZeroHedge.com<\/em>, \u00e0 partir de RealClairPolitic<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « It’s one thing for the right-wing press to accuse the Clinton foundation of cronyism, corruption, and scandal (especially if the facts, and internal admissions by affiliated employees, confirm as much) – it tends to be generally ignored by the broader, if left-leaning, media. But when the Watergate scandal’s Bob Woodward, associate editor at the liberal Washington Post, says very much the same, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has no choice but to notice. This is precisely what happened today when journalist Bob Woodward told a Fox News Sunday panel that the Clinton Foundation is "corrupt" and that Hillary Clinton has not answered for it. Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the transcript of today’s exchange:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Chris wallace, Fox News Sunday<\/em><\/strong>:<\/em> \u00ab\u00a0Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play, which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » \u00ab\u00a0But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When… when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new… new revelations about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » Bob Woodward, The Washington Post<\/em><\/strong>: \u00ab\u00a0I… yes, it’s a… it’s corrupt. It’s… it’s a scandal. And she didn’t answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it’s corrupt. You know, I mean, you can’t just say it’s unsavory. But there’s no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » \u00ab\u00a0But the election isn’t going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I’m not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that’s… that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they’re not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And… and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what’s going to be the aftermath of this campaign.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n » So it’s corrupt, it’s a scandal, and… it will have no consequences at all.<\/strong> It’s time to look up the latest definition of Banana republic again.<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Quelle signification peut-on donner \u00e0 cette intervention ? D’une part, le constat que l’establishment<\/em> s’est uni contre Trump, mais qu’il ne s’agit que d’une alliance de circonstance, que les antagonismes souvent d’une puissance inou\u00efe demeurent et ne demandent qu’\u00e0 resurgir ; la campagne \u00e9tant marqu\u00e9e d’une extr\u00eame tension sans discontinuer, l’impudence clintonienne tenant sans vergogne le haut du pav\u00e9 des apparences et WikiLeaks<\/em> faisant son travail de sape, l’exasp\u00e9ration fait son œuvre et l’on trouve d\u00e9sormais de ces \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9rapages\u00a0\u00bb dont la violence (Woodward n’y va pas de mainmorte) peut avoir des effets directs<\/strong>, – bien entendu sur les relations entre Clinton et Woodward, deux puissances washingtoniennes, mais surtout sur le climat en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. D’autre part, l’autre constat sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 par ZeroHedge.com<\/em> nous dit que la mise en \u00e9vidence de la corruption et de l’ill\u00e9galit\u00e9 d’un pair n’entraîne en rien une exigence de mise en cause formelle, puisqu’il s’agit de mœurs partag\u00e9s : Woodward, dans sa carri\u00e8re<\/a>, traîne lui aussi un certain nombre d casseroles.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Entre eux, il n’y a rien \u00e0 attendre de direct qui puisse avoir un aspect antiSyst\u00e8me, aucune cons\u00e9quence d’importance. Par contre, cette sorte d’intervention contribue d’une fa\u00e7on assez notable \u00e0 alourdir plus encore le climat, \u00e0 rendre mieux compte de l’aspect g\u00e9n\u00e9ralis\u00e9, structurel, sans possibilit\u00e9 de r\u00e9demption, de l’\u00e9tat de corruption de l’establishment<\/em><\/strong>. Chaque pav\u00e9 jet\u00e9 dans la mare boueuse, m\u00eame et surtout par un connaisseur de la boue sinon \u00e9boueur lui-m\u00eame, \u00e9clabousse tout le monde et l’\u00e9boueur pas moins. C’est un apport non n\u00e9gligeable du \u00ab\u00a0baron <\/em>du Watergate\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n Mis en ligne le 25 octobre 2016 \u00e0 06H04<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Woodward contre Clinton : \u00ab\u00a0scandale\u00a0\u00bb, \u00ab\u00a0corruption\u00a0\u00bb Surprise, surprise… L’une des pointes et des plumes les plus affut\u00e9es et les plus richement r\u00e9tribu\u00e9es du journalisme le plus fondamentalement washingtonien et am\u00e9ricaniste, l’une des vedettes de l’establishment, Bob Woodward qui pourrait porter le titre de noblesse d’influence de \u00ab\u00a0baron du Watergate\u00a0\u00bb attaque Hillary Clinton \u00e0 propos de… <\/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":[4920,17852,3858,17853,4118,3912,2626,4847],"class_list":["post-76859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-breves-de-crise","tag-bob","tag-chis","tag-corruption","tag-divise","tag-establishment","tag-wallace","tag-watergate","tag-woodward"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76859","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=76859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n