Bill Clinton's Damaging Self-Defense

-- "Over the last 15 years, I've taken almost no capital gains." This justification echoes Hillary Clinton's comments on the "dead broke" book tour. You can hear Bill and Hillary alone in Chappaqua, complaining about how they pay taxes at high, ordinary income rates, when every investment banker they know -- and they know a lot -- benefits from the carried interest loophole.

One problem with this defense is that it probably doesn't carry much weight with Hillary Clinton's "everyday" voters. What, they'd be offended about Bill Clinton's $500,000-a-pop speeches, but now that they know he didn't take advantage of lower capital gains rates, they're OK with it?

Another problem is that it's factually incorrect, unless you are in the mega-rich category in which paying close to $400,000 in capital-gains taxes is the equivalent of "almost no capital gains." That's what the Clintons paid just from 2000 to 2006, their last tax filings on record.

Then, there is the trademark Clintonian, vast-right-wing-conspiracy pity party. "There has been a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down," Bill Clinton said. "And there's almost no new fact that's known now that wasn't known when she ran for president the first time."

Not true. There have been lots of new facts occasioned by the simultaneity of Hillary Clinton's service as secretary of state and the operations of Clinton Inc., both its charitable arm and its speech-making unit.

"We have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy," Bill Clinton asserted. "Knowingly inappropriate" -- the 2016 version of Al Gore's "no controlling legal authority."

Indeed, Clinton's own defense refuted his no-new-fact argument. "We do our best to vet them," he said of speaking invitations. "And I have turned down a lot of them. If I think there's something wrong with it, I don't take it."

Oh well, then. If it's Clinton-vetted, the rest of us needn't bother.

Some important perspective here: None of this is remotely criminal. The efforts to compare the Clintons' behavior to that of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, convicted of taking bribes, or New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, indicted for the same, ignore the most important fact, or more specifically, the absence thereof: There is no evidence, none, of any official act related to these donations or speaking fees.

But not remotely criminal is vastly different from being smart politically. Hillary Clinton needs a better defense and, candidly, a better defender. Bill Clinton is a terrific explainer-in-chief. Just not when it comes to explaining his own behavior.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.