To write that Bill and Hillary Clinton are corrupt is sort of like saying a whale is bigger than an ant. It’s so obvious it hardly bears repeating.

What needs repeating is the fact that so little is done about it. Did you know that on June 4, the Senate Judiciary Committee “launched a new investigation of … Hillary Clinton’s effort to thwart a Bangladesh government corruption probe of Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor and close friend of the Clintons”?

You probably hadn’t heard. Why? Because other than Fox News, major media have been completely silent about it. A web search shows nothing on CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS. Or the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, or any other big paper.

Then there are the Clintons’ ties to Russian businesses and the decision by then-Secretary of State Clinton to provide access to American uranium to a Russian consortium.

Follow the Money

Why have so many corporations and wealthy individuals given so much to the Clinton Foundation? Is it because they have suddenly been moved by poverty and poor health around the world?

Or could it be that they assumed Hillary Clinton would become President of the United States? That not to give and give big would hurt them once she were in the White House? That their donations were protection against “Clinton, Inc.?” That the Clintons are known to be vindictive toward those who stand in their way? Or who don’t know how to write checks?

What the Emails Show

Then there are last summer’s remarks by the hapless James Comey. In his summary of the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s “private server” emails, he “raised questions about her judgment, contradicted statements she has made about her email practices, said it was possible that hostile foreign governments had gained access to her account, and declared that a person still employed by the government — Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — could have faced disciplinary action for doing what she did.”

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln …

As David Graham writes in The Atlantic, “The emails represent something of a classic Clinton scandal. … Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior.”

The iceberg of the Clintons’ corruption is vast. The above is only part of its tip.

In a sense, it all gets so repetitive, so tedious. How long must America endure these people? They are like the irksome acquaintance who photo-bombs every snapshot. He assumes whatever he says or does is interesting to everyone. He believes so deeply in his charm and intelligence that he is surprised and hurt when people find him boring.

This is, in significant degree, why Mrs. Clinton lost last year’s election. She has been rightly criticized for not having a compelling campaign theme. But that critique misses the point of being Hillary Clinton: She is her own essential message.

The late, great journalist Michael Kelly, writing of Mrs. Clinton in 1993, said she represented the Clinton administration’s “cocky assurance of its faith in the ideas of its own design.”

That is, the cocky assurance of its faith in Hillary’s ideas.

Hillary’s Hubris

Kelly titled his article “Saint Hillary.” Convinced of her moral superiority, Hillary need not play by the rules of law or ethics. She is earnest, compassionate, brave and visionary. To question her is to question all that is decent. We should feel grateful someone of her grandeur has deigned to serve us, the benighted masses. How could we not acclaim her as the self-evident gift she is?

This is why Mrs. Clinton is blaming everyone she can for her election loss: Suggesting she was at fault is plain silly. Given all she is and has done, given her unique character and experience, how could she be in any way responsible for her own defeat? She offers herself to us over and over, ready to serve those who so ill-deserve her.

So to blame her for her electoral disaster makes no sense. It’s because of — well, fill in the blanks. The suspects are legion, evil and sinister.

Which brings us to the President’s tweet this week about “corrupt H.” Was he prudent to lash-out in frustration? Was this tweet or were any of his others about the investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia wise? Is he doing himself any favors?

I think “no” is the answer to all of these. Yet that does not mean Hillary Clinton, her conduct at State, the Clinton Foundation, et al., don’t merit a measure of scrutiny and accountability they have not previously seen.

“Corrupt Hillary” is a tough moniker. It also seems pretty apt.