Arguments defending Zacharia have lately leaned on the fact that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris both failed the bar exam on their first attempts. The implication, apparently, is that failing the bar is common and therefore not disqualifying. But as one legal commentary observes, that framing conveniently overlooks what Zacharia is actually accused of: holding himself out as general counsel without ever being licensed to practice law.
The bar exam is a testing hurdle; practicing law without a license is a separate matter entirely. Clinton and Harris eventually passed the bar and went on to lawful careers. The allegation against Zacharia is not that he failed an exam, but that he misrepresented his credentials and performed legal work without authorization. That is a distinction with serious consequences for clients, employers, and the integrity of the legal profession.
The source argues that the GOP's defense is a faceplant because it substitutes a relatable anecdote for a substantive answer to the charge. Even if the bar exam comparison were accurate, it does not excuse unlicensed practice. The relevant legal standards and ethical rules do not make exceptions for people whose political allies can point to other test-takers who stumbled.
The takeaway for law and policy is simple: when the underlying accusation is systemic deception about qualifications, a list of famous people who initially failed a test does not move the needle. The focus should stay on what Zacharia allegedly did, not on the career paths of others who eventually passed.