Personal life, my fanny--he is paid (incl bonuses) with taxpayer money; what nerve.
And a thanks to Paul Sperry, who always earns his keep. For anyone unfamiliar with Sperry, he is the reporter (can't remember who he worked for at the time, maybe WSJ) who nailed Clinton, I think it was at a picnic for journalists, with a question that drew rage from the WH rapist. Sperry was fired, but appeared on several TV program to tell us about it, also a video showing a red-faced, furious Clinton.
My problem is that the article quotes too many "department sources" when citing the real "dirt" instead of giving real authorities. Also, it seems that it would be falling into a media trap to argue about something and go on the defense when the only "charges" are under-proven hypotheses. I get paid with tax payer money, but that doesn't mean my whole life needs to be an open book to any idiot who wants to make politically motivated false claims - if there's real dirt, and proof of it, they can engage in legal proceedings instead of back-door mud slinging.