... [T]he sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.ADDED: The Washington Post also has a new "Clinton Cash" article: "For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity."
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.....
Both the Times and the WaPo article are based on Peter Schweitzer's upcoming book "Clinton Cash" as a source (along with independent reporting). I haven't scoured through all the material I've linked here, but my initial reaction is that at the very least Hillary Clinton seems to have had terrible judgment. Even if there are technical, legal explanations for every single thing, there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption.
পোস্টগুলি
১১৬টি মন্তব্য:
I noticed the Clinton Foundation has had to restate tax returns due to misreporting of money from foreign governments.
Honest mistake, I'm sure.
Perhaps Hillary figures that as John McCain became "Mr. Campaign Finance Reform" to rehabilitate his image after his involvement in the Keating Five, she can overcome the slimy (if not provably illegal) dealings she and her scummy husband had with foreign oligarchs to influence U.S. policy by taking on a similar cause.
The problem with that plan is McCain spent over a decade to reestablish his image (by the early '00s, most people forgot he was one of the Keating Five) and Hillary has only a little over a year until the election.
These sort of shenanigans should disqualify these crooks from getting into the White House--and it would be nice to see the foreign slimeballs who bankrolled the Clintons see their "investments" go to ruin with her candidacy crashing.
Hillary = Putin
Gangster Government is what we have with Obama and will have with any Dems.
Repubs should be taking notes because you have to fight fire with fire.
What's the NYT up to, is the question.
There's something in it for them.
The Clintons'corruption is not a surprise, but the sheer scale of it now is.
And though it probably is pocket change in the scheme of things, I still would like to see the Norwegian government investigate why it has contributed millions to the various Clinton foundations and just who authorized that.
"What's the NYT up to..."
WaPo is up to it too. I assume that one reason is that the material is so important that failing to compete to present it is damaging to the papers' reputation.
I'm sure there are some less attractive reasons.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Another thing is that if they can look ahead and predict that this will slowly eat away at Hillary's candidacy, it will be better to accelerate the process so that the Democrats can get it together and produce some rivals.
It's the DemoRats leaving a sinking ship.
She belongs in jail. What a bunch of bullshit.
A good question for Hillary: How does an ordinary voter tell the difference between a Speaking Fee and a Bribe?
Best part of the linked article?
The Comments!!
Had to wipe the coffee off my screen.
"Another thing is that if they can look ahead and predict that this will slowly eat away at Hillary's candidacy, it will be better to accelerate the process so that the Democrats can get it together and produce some rivals."
That's what I'd want if I were a Democrat--it can't be comfortable to pin all hopes on the candidacy of this wooden, scandal-ridden incompetent. At least with a real primary campaign, there's a chance to test her out or give a rival a chance.
The other possibility (from a NYT favors Clinton standpoint) is getting this out of the way early, so it's old news by next year. But if this story uncovers actual crimes, and DOJ has no choice but to prosecute, look out.
If it was a Russian company, and it involved oil or minerals, Putin's gang was involved.
"A good question for Hillary: How does an ordinary voter tell the difference between a Speaking Fee and a Bribe?"
That's exactly what a real journalist needs to ask. "How can the American people be certain you did not let your decisions be influenced by these donations? Why should they just take your word for it?"
Not that the Clinton campaign will let her near any real journalists.
Ann Althouse said...
"What's the NYT up to..."
WaPo is up to it too. I assume that one reason is that the material is so important that failing to compete to present it is damaging to the papers' reputation.
I'm sure there are some less attractive reasons.
Perhaps not the Post, but the Times for sure stays silent on many important things. They have lived for years off their core audience, people who are still willing to accept that if it isn't in the Times then it didn't happen.
There are still many on the left who dislike the Clintons because they were centrists (their centrist DLC is now caput), and because they caved to Republicans after the D's disastrous showing in the 1994 midterms.
The press would prefer Warren. If they can't get Warren to run, they will fall in line behind Hillary.
I wonder if the Obama White House is quietly doing it's part to scuttle Mrs. Clinton's campaign, and are using their media connections to do so. They likely fear that her staying in the race will force her to publically repudiate eg., the administration's wars in Libya and Syria, and become a major campaign issue, to their detriment.
There is also the agreements she made with the White House when she resigned the Senate for State. I'm sure they value the agreements more than she does.
"there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption"
Faux surprise, right?
When did such "appearances" ever matter to Slick Willy and his "wife"?
When did evidence of greed, corruption, lying, sexual harassment, and worse criminality, ever prevent Dems from supporting their people?
Yes, I know: there are cases of rejection, when Dems seriously cross other Dems. As Robert Menendez can attest.
Terrible inattention the the appearance of greed and corruption -- that could be the slogan of the Clintons and their foundation.
What has changed?
She continues to be the same incompetent, thoroughly corrupt liar she has always been and that we all knew she was. Anyone here going to have their mind changed by this?
SOS to me.
When the leader of Iran says X and Zero says Y and the big V says Z - how am I supposed to know who is telling the truth? Is there any reason to believe one of them over the other?
Sad American.
Ready for Carly
Keystone people were doing it all wrong!
"Yeah, but she would still make a good president"-
--Every Democrat Everywhere
She's been involved in a long trail of cronyism and corruption, stretching back over 25 years. What does it take for people to realize she is completely unsuited to public office? In no way do we want her as president of this country. One symbolic election is enough.
There's also the fact that Mrs. Clinton made specific promises about NOT taking donations from foreign sources and about disclosing any donations that were made. None of these promises were kept. Her failure to keep promises shows a lot more than mere lack of judgment.
I could vote for a Florina/Graham ticket.
The Clintons have always been for sale. The question was the price. Apparently, their level of corruption fetches a pretty high price. It just confirms that the highest return on investment isn't from creating a new product or service but from buying politicians.
Everyone expects the Blue media NYT to be loyal to the Clintons.
It is curious. The NYT is, I thought, a campaign headquarters for her.
- Poor Judgement
- shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption.
- All your White House China belong to me
- Lying at the caskets of 4 people your incompetence killed
- I'll disclose only what I want to disclose, despite the law
C'mon fellow citizens. We can do better. Much better.
The problem with that plan is McCain spent over a decade to reestablish his image (by the early '00s, most people forgot he was one of the Keating Five) and Hillary has only a little over a year until the election.
Not sure if I agree with this, as it relates to McCain. Keating was a social acquaintance of his - they apparently belonged to the same clubs in PHX, etc., and McCain claims that he never did anything for him that he wouldn't have done for other constituents, and esp. constituents he knew personally. And, quit dealing with Keating the minute this hit the news. The problem, and why arguably why McCain was roped into the scandal, was that he was a Republican, and the rest of the Keating 5 were Democrats. With him, it was a bi-partisan scandal. Without, it was a Dem scandal.
But, yes, this probably did cause McCain to go all in with campaign finance reform, even to the point of getting sucked in whenever the Dems wanted to stack the deck in their favor.
Soon, Pinchy will have mysterious funds flowing into his bank account and the NYT "news" will return to it's properly ideologically poisonous routine. (er I mean flowers and sunshine)
Thank God she has a va-jay-jay.
That does trump incompetence, dishonesty and evil, right?
"Even if there are technical, legal explanations for every single thing, there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption."
I could expect that "shocking inattention" from Hillary but not Bill.
Makes me wonder if Bill was all in favor of the cash infusion related to the run-up to Hillary's run for president, but not so thrilled with the prospect of her winning.
Meade said...
I could vote for a Florina/Graham ticket.
Meade, Meade, Meade, lose the pink underwear, go back to the blue.
Take the Red Pill.
Where is the Alpha who drove to WI (of all places) and threw Althouse over his shoulder and made her submit?
damikesc beat me to it. Apparently the Clinton Foundation is using Tim Geitner's outdated version of Turbo Tax.
Doesn't the NYT own the WaPo and the Boston Globe?
I wonder what Carlos Slim wants? I am sure there is something Hillary could do for a billionaire.
I wonder how big a 'donation' Hillary would require to pimp out Huma for a night?
I'm inquiring for a friend.
I am Laslo.
Instapundit like Florin because "she fights".
Meade, do you think Fiorina is angling for the traditional VP role of attack dog if, as it's likely, she doesn't get the nomination?
"How does an ordinary voter tell the difference between a Speaking Fee and a Bribe?"
Its a Speaking Fee if the politician has fully retired.
The Clintons' record does not "go back 25 years" as the reporters keep saying. It goes back 40 to 50 years.
And in the past these things have always gone away, and I expect that is what is going on here. Get it over with now, hunker down and stonewall, and in a couple of months it will all be old news, and the campaign can proceed as scheduled.
tim in vermont said...
Doesn't the NYT own the WaPo and the Boston Globe?
Bezos of Amazon led the group that bought WaPo, and John Henry principal owner of the Red Sox led the group that bought the Boston Globe.
Re the foundation tax returns, when you set up something that that is going to be international and gigantic, you would only hire a CFO who has vast experience in managing a large, international charity and in filing compliant tax returns and making all the required discloures.
The Clintons obviously will clain they hire Joe Schmo, Junior Accountant, and he was the one who screwed up.
NYT and WaPo are undoubtedly mindful of the vast scale of corruption in the world of charitable foundations. A quick look at Charity Navigator shows that even excellent and efficient charities usually pay their leaders extremely well and spend a lot on administration and things like fundraising (travel, food, etc.). The crappy and inefficient charities are simply corrupt.
So maybe one of these papers will do a big story on how some charities are really money-laundering operations for their leaders. What a shock that would be.
"Its a Speaking Fee if the politician has fully retired."
What baffles me is how this has been going on since 2000 and we're only now seeing real attention paid to it. This should have been an issue in 2008 at least--there was no question she was going to run for president and they were taking these "speaking fees" even then.
Will the Blue Media run after Fiorina with the same breathless enthusiasm and vigor as they did queen Hillary?
I suspect the Blue Media will Palinize Fiorina.
-or-
The Blue Media will simply ignore her. After-all, the left only approve and promote "correct" thinkers and "correct" opinions.
I don't really get the Fiorina hype--she's never held public office or won an election, and we're now supposed to risk it with her for president? At least win a lower office and hone your chops, Carly!
"there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption."
That's simply because the Clinton's are crooks, plain and simple.
As for Hillary!'s "terrible judgment," see PBS's "Secrets of an Independent Counsel," which had a segment showing Don Tyson's private plane pilot testifying on camera that he brought manila envelopes stuffed with cash to then Governor Clinton in Little Rock.
And it still went quietly away, didn't it?
"I suspect the Blue Media will Palinize Fiorina.
-or-
The Blue Media will simply ignore her. After-all, the left only approve and promote "correct" thinkers and "correct" opinions."
Unless Fiorina gets a rise in the polls and raises serious cash behind her bid I don't see the media taking her too seriously, and that's understandable. Hillary, for all of her faults, has comfortable polling leads and came a hair from winning it in 2008. Of course they're going to take her seriously. Carly ran in a hopeless race for Senate in CA, and now is considering running for the GOP presidential nomination. Any reason to be wary of a one-term Senator (of which we have three in the race so far) is doubled when we're talking about someone with zero political experience.
The basic "come to our group and get a bribe in public, called a speech fee" should be called what it is. A speech is $10,000 plus travel expenses and the rest of the $290,000 out of $300,000 paid is pure bribery.
Notice the NYT asserts the charges without referencing Schweizer, even though they later credit him with bringing the matter to light. This means their own investigation proved the matter sufficiently to risk their own reputation on it. Given how an error would damage it among its core audience this effectively means they saw definitive proof.
I was a little skeptical about what evidence this book would include to prove the allegations, but this article puts the book on a new level.
To the extent that Fiorina runs (or even not), she is the perfect attack weapon against the big V.
Of course the Clintons are corrupt. They do what they have to do in the service of the greater good.
Do you think Hillary and Bill want to be crooks? Do you think they like having all that money?
If the alternative wasn't unthinkable to them I'm sure they would follow the rules and obey the laws like most folks do.
But that's not an option for them and it never has been.
Oops! Did I say "has been?" Sorry. I think that's one of the things we're not supposed to say during the campaign.
So let me get this straight: Democrats won't let the U.S. build a gas pipeline to Canada. But they're totally fine with Vladimir Putin locking up 20 percent of the Uranium supply so they can ship it to Iran.
"there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption."
I would say the magnitude of the Clinton's greed and
corruption —obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature—is shocking. Clinton INC is a criminal enterprise conducting business in broad daylight.
Brando - Yeah but Fiorina has female genitalia and I thought that trumped everything?
The first female treatment is ideologically one-sided.
"The basic "come to our group and get a bribe in public, called a speech fee" should be called what it is. A speech is $10,000 plus travel expenses and the rest of the $290,000 out of $300,000 paid is pure bribery."
I suppose they could argue--plausibly--that getting a person of sufficient fame to attend your event is worth a high price tag. I don't have a problem with that for former presidents who have no obvious influence on future presidents (at least anything obvious enough to encourage a briber)--the problem here is that this is a former president and his wife when it is well known that she was going to run for president (and with a good chance of winning). In that case, the quid pro quo is obvious. Anyone who isn't a slime would know better than to be involved in such a shady arrangement, but that's the Clintons for you. Entitled, crooked, and defended by the lowest sleaze.
"NYT and WaPo are undoubtedly mindful of the vast scale of corruption in the world of charitable foundations . . . The crappy and inefficient charities are simply corrupt . . . So maybe one of these papers will do a big story on how some charities are really money-laundering operations for their leaders. What a shock that would be."
Yes, an exposé on the charity-industrial complex would be Pulitzer bait.
Even if there are technical, legal explanations for every single thing, there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption.
It's greed and corruption. Probably justified in the Clinton mind as some benefit for 'the common good'.
""Even if there are technical, legal explanations for every single thing, there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption."
I suspect most of the public doesn't understand that there's very little limitation on what a "charity" can spend its money on, and it certainly can spend much its money on enriching its founders (just so long as at least $1. goes to the professed charitable purpose).
As I understand it, the absence of legal restrictions on what a charity can spend its money on derive from the fact that giving to charity is not a commercial transaction (in which the buyer can reasonably expect something in return for something) and, government is restricted from defining what is "charity" due to First Amendment considerations (i.e., prohibitions on restriction of free speech and free exercise of religion).
The effect is that while some charities do good charitable work, many donors give to charities that do little more than enrich those connected with the charity. Presumably the donor has a right to give to these charities; if donors don't want to be taken for fools they need to do better due diligence before donating.
The problem with the Clinton's "charity" is not so much that it's a scam (lots of charities are scams) but the implication that U.S. national interests are being sold out for private gain. In any case, I'd hope that any coverage of this in the press (and much of the press usually does take its lead from the NYT and WaPo) would at least explain that charities can't legally be required to use any significant portion of donations for what most would recognize as charitable purposes.
"Yeah but Fiorina has female genitalia and I thought that trumped everything?"
Certainly the Left has been hypocritical on this--they won't even acknowledge black or female Republicans except in calling them "tokens" (that creep Harry Reid even referred to Clarence Thomas as one of the "white men" who decided Hobby Lobby. Probably not so much a slip of the tongue as revealing Reid doesn't naturally think of Thomas as black).
It'd be a shame if Hillary was our first female president--she is corrupt, divisive, incompetent and prone to tyrannical impulses. Plus, it'd be grotesque if the first female president was someone who trashed the reputations of other women who were victims of her creep husband's harassment.
I don't know about Carly though--had she say won a governorship or congressional seat back in 2010, and spent the time since then establishing experience and expertise as well as political skills, I'd be more interested in her race. It'd be just too perfect if Hillary lost out on being president--to another woman!
For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.
Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation’s work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation’s annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.
I understand that they assume most of us are idiots, but how can they be so stupid that they assume all of us are?
21st century cattle futures. ITA what difference, at this point, does it matter?
I don't think that Carly Fiorina has a serious chance at the Republican nomination, and expect that she knows that too. Which means that she is probably, deep down, angling for the VP nomination.
If Hillary! (or even Fauxhauntis Warren) gets the Dem nomination, the Republicans are probably going to need a female on the ticket, so that they can go after the Dem nominee. The basic problem is that a man going after a woman, the way that the Reps would need to, would make a lot of women feel like they were bullies. A woman can say the sorts of things that a man cannot.
Palin would be perfect as the VP candidate, but is highly unlikely to be running. Gov. Martinez is a possibility, but isn't visibly running. Sec. Rice would be a great VP (or President), but doesn't have the attack dog personality needed. Which brings us to Fiorina, who seems to have thrown her hat into the ring, as the only viable woman. And, is getting in some good hits on Hillary!, which is what she should be doing if she wants the VP nomination.
She doesn't need to be running for president. She needs to be facing a grand jury. Maybe two grand juries. One for this corrupt behavior - I'm sure there are one or more federal laws related to this - and the other for violations of the Federal Records Act for her e-mail shenanigans. And, I understand if convicted on the latter, she could be barred forever from ever holding any federal office again. However, I don't expect any of this to happen. It is beginning to appear there are three interpretations of any law: one of the little people, one for the elites, and one for the Clintons. And there will be millions who will vote for her because they just don't care,
If the Democrats lose the White House they have no one to blame but themselves. By all accounts they should win it in 2016 - they can point to how the Republicans destroyed the economy twice while Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were at the helm and how they helped bring it back on track....
This is one of the Times recommended comments.
EDH said...
Instapundit like Florin because "she fights".
I'll happily admit I am often easily influenced by Glenn Reynolds. He's a smart and interesting guy and as affable a person as you'd ever want to meet. If you ever get the chance, I recommend buying him a beer.
So if Professor Reynolds says Carly is a fighter, I take note.
Brando said...
"A good question for Hillary: How does an ordinary voter tell the difference between a Speaking Fee and a Bribe?"
That's exactly what a real journalist needs to ask. "How can the American people be certain you did not let your decisions be influenced by these donations? Why should they just take your word for it?"
-The only people who are taken in by this vast right wing conspiracy are nuts and sluts.
They lied to the IRS for three years.....She belongs in Prison......http://megynkelly.us/139327/clintons-lied-on-tax-forms-claiming-no-foreign-money-to-foundation/
... at the very least Hillary Clinton seems to have had terrible judgment.
Not to mention the lack of judgment to mix her personal and official Emails on a poorly-secured server. Foreign governments must have been having a field day reading the Emails she received before she did, and probably reading the ones she generated as she typed them.
9:45 Brando - I agree.
I'm interested in the fact that the media treat Hillary with respect, even though her entire life is littered with corruption.
Fiorina may not be a strong candidate, but if all things were equal, Hillary is the weaker candidate.
And does anyone doubt that the Obamas will have their very own foundation after 2016?
Here's one reason to elect independently wealthy representatives. At least with the Bushes, you know they didn't need any money after leaving office. 43 works with Wounded Warrior Project, an independent charity that is not giving him a kickback.
"I'm interested in the fact that the media treat Hillary with respect, even though her entire life is littered with corruption.
Fiorina may not be a strong candidate, but if all things were equal, Hillary is the weaker candidate."
I'm seeing some strain even in more left-leaning media outlets--her inaccessibility to reporters and lame answers to these accusations are wearing on them. They're trying to be "fair" to Hillary because of course the lickspittle brigade (e.g., David Brock, Carville) carry on as though the media has been anti-Hillary (same tactic they tried using in 2008). But they can only push this so far, and besides, the media needs something interesting to happen in the Democratic side of the primaries. Imagine getting that primary beat, while your colleagues get to cover the GOP primaries!
As for Fiorina, if she somehow got the GOP nod and it came down to her and Hillary, hands down I'd support Carly--little as I know about her, at least I know Hillary has an awful track record on foreign policy, civil liberties, the economy, and is generally corrupt. By default Carly is a better bet. And at least she got where she is without marrying and enabling a scumbag to get there. Who would be a better role model for young women?
"If the Democrats lose the White House they have no one to blame but themselves. By all accounts they should win it in 2016 - they can point to how the Republicans destroyed the economy twice while Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were at the helm and how they helped bring it back on track...."
There is some truth to that comment--the Dems do have some built in advantages which is why I'm not that confident that even a terrible candidate like Hillary will lose. While the Bushes didn't "destroy" the economy (and the Dems didn't "save" it), voters still do tend to blame those who were at the helm when things go badly, and reward those at the helm when they turn around.
"If Hillary! (or even Fauxhauntis Warren) gets the Dem nomination, the Republicans are probably going to need a female on the ticket, so that they can go after the Dem nominee. The basic problem is that a man going after a woman, the way that the Reps would need to, would make a lot of women feel like they were bullies. A woman can say the sorts of things that a man cannot."
The GOP would be best served if it has the most politically talented nominee, regardless of gender. A good politician can beat Hillary without coming off like a bully, even if he's male. And if the GOP nominated a woman who comes across as shrill or clunky, the attacks will backfire and they'll lose the female vote anyway.
That said, Martinez is probably on some short lists for VP and supposedly she has a good rep in NM, and would be harder for the Dems to demonize. And if they can't demonize, they can't win.
"They lied to the IRS for three years.....She belongs in Prison......"
If I were in Obama's shoes, and found some solid evidence of illegal activity by the Clintons, I'd absolutely have the DOJ bring an indictment. Consider the upside:
1) Makes Obama look like a profile in courage by going after "his own team" for the sake of upholding the law. He'd win rare praise from the right, as well as "good government" liberals.
2) Enables the Dems to find a viable candidate more to his liking--maybe Corey Booker, even Biden.
3) If the Dems lose the White House, that may still be better for Obama than Clinton winning. She would surely blame a lot of the foreign policy messes and economic troubles on her predecessor, and this would sting more than getting it from a GOP successor because it's coming from within the party. Plus, if the GOP has to deal with fixing ACA, they take some ownership of the law, or the heat if it can't be fixed.
4) Twists the knife in this reptilian couple that has been backstabbing Obama since 2008 and has been freezing out his allies and supporters.
Working against this is the fact that Obama hasn't done anything really ballsy since taking office (his executive and legislative overreach were basically viewed as risk free when he did them). It'd take some ballsiness to indict his former Sec of State.
The vast right wing conspiracy made her do it.
About whether the Clintons are corrupt there is no question. The system is built for corruption - not that that's any excuse. Her electability depends on how many will vote for her regardless of her corrupt career.
In a close election this could matter but with every passing year it matters less lately. You'll notice that the immediate damage control response is to attack the messenger rather than refute the charges. We're living in an ad hominem world more so than I've ever seen. This is how truth is evaluated now; according to who is speaking.
How does an ordinary voter tell the difference between a Speaking Fee and a Bribe?
If it's paid to a democrat, it's a Speaking Fee. If it's paid to a republican, it's a Bribe.
This will all blow over. There is no 'smoking gun'.
Rethugs in ruins.
This has an Enron whiff.
Formerly widely respected institution starts to have people actually look at their finances.
Numerous questions arise and are not answered.
A rather significant tax restatement is required.
Of course, Enron ended up with indictments while this will lead to the Clintons being lionized.
There is no 'smoking gun'.
A restatement having to admit to receiving tens of millions from foreign governments when you claimed no money received is awfully smoky...
Ann Althouse said..., there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption
Respectfully, if you're shocked you haven't been paying attention, Professor. The Clintons have been getting away with it for so long it's only natural that they don't pay attention to the appearance--Whitewater was some seriously shady shit (for which a couple of their associates were convicted of crimes!) and they came out the other side of that as heroes (it was just about sex, she stood by her man, vast rightwing conspiracy, Newt is worse)!
If you do something one way for more than two decades and the result is so positive, why would you worry about changing, especially given the Media's less-hostile attitude now?
Hillary is shrill and has a hair trigger on her temper. She will blow up like a dollar watch at some point in the next six months. In public. Or in a setting that she believes to be private.
Her past is not going to be her undoing and she could shoot a baby rabbit on TV and the press would call it medical research. There is nothing that will undo her except the fact that she will not be able to hide her crazy. It is going to present in a way that will cause everyone to look at the person next to them and they will not need to say a word. Because they will all be thinking the same word at the same time. Crazy.
As an aside, this is one of the big reasons Clinton's political opponents are so often called "haters" and seem sometimes to overreact to things--the Clintons blatantly get away with it so much (and for such big, obvious things) that at times those pointing out those facts are reduced (in caricature at least) to pointing and sputtering.
There is greed & corruption all around. All that matters is Hillary supports policies that a majority support. She'll win a landslide.
All that matters is Hillary supports policies that a majority support.
Can you name them?
Her campaign has been amazingly devoid of any substance so far, so I'm curious.
There is greed & corruption all around.
They just don't care about corruption as long as it is "their guy." Could you imagine for a second a delegation of Democrats visiting the WH to tell a Democrat POTUS he needs to resign?
That's what happened with Nixon. Republicans wouldn't stand for the corruption. Democrats love corruption. Love the smell of it.
"Could you imagine for a second a delegation of Democrats visiting the WH to tell a Democrat POTUS he needs to resign?"
Schumer, Pelosi and Reid would be out front and center announcing that Archie Cox was a right wing GOP fanatic, Judge Sirica had long opposed the president, and the tapes provided no "smoking gun" of evidence that the president committed any crimes. Their cronies in the media would point out that other previous presidents did this stuff, and all the tapes showed was that the president "mused about" breakins without actually ordering them.
The Democrats play much harder ball than the GOP did.
This article has not appeared in print, but it might appear tomorrow.
The book is actually the first volume of a series. Part II will be about Jeb Bush.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-23/clinton-cash-author-is-targeting-jeb-bush-next
@Peter - it is possible for a charity to be a fraud.
But the operators can spend a lot of money for operations as long as their bookkeeping is accurate, and they do use some of the money for the purposes for which it was raised.
I think though that the more interesting question may be (thanks to Rush), what is going on here? Why are the WaPo, NYT, etc., piling onto Hillary!? It is possible that they are helping get these scandals out early, so that she can point out that they are old news, old scandals, when called out by Republicans during the election. But, we are talking taking hundreds of millions of dollars for their personal slush fund/foundation from foreign governments, foreign corporations, and foreigners, and some, like the Russians trying to corner the uranium market stink to high heaven, with her State Department signing off on those deals while her husband is raking in the money.
But, whenever, you look at their slush fund/foundation, you realize that they managed to get insanely rich themselves along the way. Better than $100 million, maybe 2x or 3x that. Why was she worth $300K, and he over half a million a speech? Not for the wisdom they impart, but often for their political influence. They openly peddle influence for the types of fees that would qualify them each as 1% based on giving a single speech a year. If not influence peddling, then what are they selling for those prices?
As previous posters here have pointed out, the corruption is so blatant, and so long running, that those on the right have been pulling out their hair for decades. And, yet, the MSM is now, for maybe the first time, subjecting the Clintons to some scrutiny. Questioning what they accepted, ignored, and swept under the rug so assiduously for those decades.
My theory is that these MSM outlets either know for a fair certainty that Hillary! is going to lose, or are taking their marching orders from the Obamabots. Hillary!, in particular, is known to be vindictive almost to the extreme. She isn't going to forget who on the left, in the MSM, etc. did her dirty. And, that is why my questions.
I hope Scooby doesn't find out about this.
The Clintons would sell their souls to the devil for contributions.
And who knows, maybe they have. It's obvious they would, and maybe have, sold America out.
And Chelsea is now obviously one of them.
Pond scum. No, that gives pond scum a bad name. There is no words to describe the Clintons.
"Shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption."
Greed and corruption are not appearances where the Clintons are concerned.
What does it take for the public to realize that these are not people who should be granted any authority over anything, much less electyed office?
The book is actually the first volume of a series. Part II will be about Jeb Bush.
I await the Left's dramatic about face on his legitimacy as a reporter when that one comes out.
I doubt conservatives will be stunned. The Bushes have money and Jeb doesn't seem like the most transparent dude out there.
Also love the denial of meeting with mining officials --- until they saw that the NYT had photos of them doing so.
They lie with such frequency that they figure a few will get through.
It must have been amusing for a party that lionized them to call anybody (such as Bush) a "liar"
The book is actually the first volume of a series. Part II will be about Jeb Bush.
This was revealed on Morning Joe to rebut Howard Dean who attacked not only the Clinton Cash author but the New York Times. Dean said he teaches his journalism students that the NYTimes reporters are sloppy. Oh, Dean had not even read the NYTime article about the Russian uranium deal, but he knew it was sloppy and FALSE.
Dude, her husband's money is as free as his speech, said your precious SCOTUS. Just let it flow.
This will be as problematic as all the other shady corporate ties that can no longer be counted or tracked.
Remember, it's just speech. It's as meaningful as if the Russian guy sent a thank you letter or made a nice roast of Clinton.
SCOTUS said so.
"there's shocking inattention to the appearance of greed and corruption."
If you actually are greedy and corrupt, it's going to appear that way once people get the facts. The Clintons are both greedy and corrupt. Have been all their lives. Only the scale has increased.
Remember, the Clintons are only the most prominent example of the corruption of the modern state. It runs on corrupt (though usually legal) transactions.
Remember, the Clintons are only the most prominent example of the corruption of the modern state. It runs on corrupt (though usually legal) transactions.
This is the campaign environment that SCOTUS built.
The Clinton attack team was interesting today. Listened a bit to Hannity on AM, and they tried to talk with a Clinton surrogate about the Russian uranium deal, and their response was almost non-stop about JEB, JEB, etc., and the hypocrisy of going after the Clintons instead of Republicans (presumably, esp., JEB). I think that there was some ad hominum about the author of the upcoming book too.
R&B is dilating some stategic obtuseness--well played! But we're not talk about spending on campaigns, we're talking about blatant bribery. If you want to handcuff yourself to this scum couple, then go right ahead. But the Left is not required to do so and would be better off jettisoning these creeps. What have they really done for you, anyway?
nah no corruption here!
And President Obama wants to give Iran the bomb.
Actually, I've been thinking about the latter lately. At one time, a number of nuclear scientists in this country wanted to make nuclear bomb making technology available to any and all countries. Their thinking was that if everyone had a nuclear weapon, then no one would ever think of using it. Personally, I think that idea is wrong, but you can consistently see that thinking on the left. It's why the left wants to strip our military of its power, the thinking being that if all armies are roughly equal, then the cost/benefit anaylsis will always point countries toward peace rather than war. Again, I think that is a flawed premise, but it explains quite a bit of Obama's actions, and why he thinks he is doing the best for the country.
The crony capitalism is another matter, and the bribery of Mrs. CLinton is something else altogether.
Remember, it's just speech. It's as meaningful as if the Russian guy sent a thank you letter or made a nice roast of Clinton.
There is a word in here that you aren't picking up on. It's a noun. figure it out yet?
Where was your snark about SCOTUS when Thom Steyer was writing campaign contribution checks? I didn't mind him spending what, close to 100 million, supporting his favored candidates. But then, he's a citizen.
I looked at the foundation's 2012 tax return.It was prepared by Ernie Skyrme of BKD, LLP which is a Little Rock, AK CPA firm.
The founation's financial bigwigs are named Andrew Kessel and Julie Felder. Felder was paid $245,000 in 2012 according to the tax return.
Ok RecChief - are you saying you can allow speech from foreigners, but not money? SCOTUS says you're wrong!
Hahahaha. Some moral high ground that ruling gave you. Mark my words, no one will care now.
Accept that this is the new political reality. What you or I or anybody thinks doesn't matter at all now, you megalomaniacal douchebag. The money game's been set into motion. The fact that all you can do is personally moralize ME (as if I have anything to do with this) just shows how desperate you know you are.
We are at a turning point, a watershed, in what will become politically acceptable in campaigns. If not, prove me wrong with something other than stupid legalisms and bitchy scolding. (Not that those things are proofs, anyway).
You have changed the political culture so as to make this much more acceptable. And it was never illegal, anyway.
The more you deny how these floodgates were opened, the more convinced I am that you know they will get away with it. How desperate you are to deny that reality with nothing more than the whole "Shame! Shame!" BS that lefties shout at you. And I'M not EVEN BEHIND OR SUPPORTING IT! I'm just telling you how it will now play out.
Enjoy the show, kemosabe.
I looked at the foundation's 2012 tax return.It was prepared by Ernie Skyrme of BKD, LLP which is a Little Rock, AK CPA firm.
The founation's financial bigwigs are named Andrew Kessel and Julie Felder. Felder was paid $245,000 in 2012 according to the tax return.
Yeah yeah yeah blah blah blah we know. NOBODY CARES! They won't care if it's George Soros, they won't care if it's the Cock Brothers. No one fucking cares now. IT'S ALL JUST A FORM OF SPEECH!
Enjoy what that speech is doing.
You guys are thicker than lamp posts.
If it involved anyone other than the Clintons, it would be a simple bribery case hidden behind a few mirrors and smoke from crumpled newspaper in a trash can.
Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
This is the campaign environment that SCOTUS built.
4/23/15, 7:12 PM
Indeed. It is the great American tragedy when those noble exemplars of virtue - the Clintons - were corrupted by Citizens United.
You guys are thicker than lamp posts.
Then again maybe it's you.
Ya know?
Just sayin'
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন