The NYT got hold of a copy, and Amy Chozick has this:
But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling [than some other recent anti-Hillary books], both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book....
From 2001 to 2012, the Clintons’ income was at least $136.5 million, Mr. Schweizer writes, using a figure previously reported in The Post. “During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and individuals, he writes. “Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”...
[Schweizer] writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources....
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
But, but, but . . . Scooby!
"because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book…."
If it means the NYT and WaPo will seriously dig up dirt, that's news.
During Hillary’s years of public service
"Public service" is almost as perversely funny as "community organizer".
Why should Harry Reid be the only one pulling in the doe?
Oh look, a LESBIAN!
Someone call the FEC -- this looks like an illegal campaign contribution to me!!
Better ban the book, preemptively... let the courts sort out whether there are any so-called free speech issues involved.
True Believers don't care about this stuff at all. And the young kids who will vote for her will most likely say "So what". Besides "we need a woman president".
True Believers don't care about this stuff at all. And the young kids who will vote for her will most likely say "So what". Besides "we need a woman president".
The Clintons love free speech. Bravo~!
The Clintons love free speech. Bravo~!
Ironically, Citizens United wasn't based on a movie about Obama.
It was based on a movie about Hillary.
Chozick offers much evidence that political figures just need to let true believers do the work for them.
Give 'em a nod or a 'team Hilary' wristband and watch 'em go.
There are Kennedys still feeding at the public trough generations hence, barely visible within the layers of mythos and sentimental media revenue generating dream machine..
Wasn't there a Ron Reagan show?
The language police can offer great material for humor, but politically mobilizing language police are dangerous idiots.
When I think of Hillary, I'm reminded of the short one-act play "The Stronger" by August Strindberg. Essentially a monologue by one woman directed towards another woman who remains silent. A recent, favorite version of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dl03XBP1ms) features an older woman berating and mocking a younger woman. The older woman rotates between anger, entitlement and condescension revealing her inner unhinged self. A fine performance by Clare Higgins, but the silent performance by Fiona O'Shaunessy is amazing.
Bribes to the Clinton Foundation are tax deductible. This is a great leap forward and typical of the kind of innovative thinking that so defines the Clintons' years of public service. Compare the Clintons' bribery schemes to those of, say, Senator Menendez. Menendez's patron got tax breaks but he didn't get a tax break on the money he spent getting tax breaks. This is sheer genius on the part of the Clintons, and they have never been properly credited for their many innovations on the fields of sleaze and corruption.
It would make sense for an ex-president (who wants to make big money) would make quite a bit on selling memoirs and taking on speaking fees. But $130 million in ten years is remarkable--and considering that his spouse has been seriously considered for the presidency suggests that there's an intention to buy "access" by many if not most of these donors. Maybe no specific law was broken here, but the whole arrangement stinks of corruption and is no less than what I'd expect from these charlatans.
Please spare us a Clinton restoration. We really don't need this right now.
That $136M is personal income.
That does not include the Clinton Foundation which is treated like big unlimited expense account and pays the salaries of all the Clinton sycophants.
The Clintons make Jack Abramoff look like a piker.
"True Believers don't care about this stuff at all. And the young kids who will vote for her will most likely say "So what". Besides "we need a woman president"."
A lot of people sadly won't care too much about this--"how does this affect me?" will be what the Clintons hope a lot of people ask. The fact that this couple is crooked to the core may even be a feature, not a bug, for some hacks.
But I think on the Left there will be a few key groups to watch for:
1) The Clinton lapdogs. People who work for them, or support them out of an unexplainable love of this creepy couple whose charms worked on them. They will back them no matter what scandal comes out.
2) The Left wing of the Democrats--these folks would love Warren to run, and don't much like Clinton, but will support her to a point--so long as they can swallow enough of her phony pandering to the Left, and the GOP nominates someone scary enough to get them to pick Clinton by default. Watch them if Clinton is hit by a truly awful scandal, or if a Leftist alternative emerges, or if the GOP picks someone non-threatening enough that these people just stay home or go 3d party.
3) Democratic moderates. These are the non-Occupy types--socially liberal, moderate on the economy, and politically the sort that Clinton should be able to appeal to. These types are similar to Reagan Democrats. However, if Clinton panders too far to the Left (or is hit by an awful enough scandal) and the GOP picks someone who seems moderate enough, these voters may actually cross over.
Wasn't there a Ron Reagan show?
Before, not after.
Reagan was a Democrat when he took a job with GE as their spokesman and host of the GE Theater. As spokesman, he traveled the country doing PR and giving speeches at GE plants. @ $125k a year
Remember Reagan getting slammed for earning 2 million for speeches in Japan?
Seems like small change now.
Beta Rube said...
Remember Reagan getting slammed for earning 2 million for speeches in Japan?
Seems like small change now.
---
The main difference, of course, was that Reagan was out of power and was going remain out of power.
The fact that the whole world new Hillary was going to run for Senate and then POTUS the moment they left the White House makes this stink to high heaven.
It's a Global lobbying scandal.
I do not remeber that.
I do remember reading that "Poppy" Bush set his post-presidential speaking fee at $100,000, thinking that no one would be fool enough to pay him that, and being not all that pleased when he found them lining up in squads, cash in hand, to take him up on it.
How much have the Clinton foundations brought in and how much has been spent on personal salaries and expenses ferrying them about the world? I don't think Chelsea is doing this for free.
PB said...
How much have the Clinton foundations brought in and how much has been spent on personal salaries and expenses ferrying them about the world? I don't think Chelsea is doing this for free.
Don't those tax exempt charity foundations have strict IRS reporting requirements and overhead ratio disclosures?
inquiring minds would look into it if it were the Romney Fund...
None of this matters, because Scott Walker won't attend a gay wedding.
Drill Sgt:
"That does not include the Clinton Foundation which is treated like big unlimited expense account and pays the salaries of all the Clinton sycophants."
Good point Drill Sgt. I'd love to see the detailed list of W-2's and 1099's issued by the Clinton Foundation in the last 4-5 years assuming of course that the Foundation even follows IRS regulations regarding who should get those forms.
To comfort themselves with illusions, The left are blaming the Clintons multi-decades long history of graft and universal lobbying as some sort of derivative of Citizens United.
Morons.
Works out to nearly $1500 per hour, 24/7 for 10 years. That's a lot of speechifying.
Do the exclusive agreements mean that the Times, etc., will dig up dirt, or have they bought the right to squelch investigations? What, exactly, does it mean to have these agreements?
For any of this stuff to hurt Hillary! somebody's going to have to figure out how to explain to the low information voter why Bill and Hillary benefit personally from contributions to their foundation. The Clintons dodged the bullet on Whitewater because nobody could understand it.
Works out to nearly $1500 per hour, 24/7 for 10 years. That's a lot of speechifying.
Not at $300,000 a speech. At 40 hours a week (not 24/7), 2 hours per speech, that's less than three months work — say, six weeks each for Clinton and Clinton.
Good point Drill Sgt. I'd love to see the detailed list of W-2's and 1099's issued by the Clinton Foundation in the last 4-5 years assuming of course that the Foundation even follows IRS regulations regarding who should get those forms.
It'd be lovely, but given the President and their behavior, you have zero chance of getting them.
The country is dying and, sadly, some innocents will be hurt by the hive mind of Progressives.
If they find evidence of actual lawbreaking by the Clintons--as opposed to ethical lapses and legal but shady dealings--I wouldn't be surprised to see DOJ go on the warpath. Obama has no reason to cover for Hillary, and clearly feels as though she's been stabbing him in the back (her criticisms of his foreign policy decisions, the unnecessary e-mail scandal, Bill's nastiness during the '08 campaign). He also might benefit by being succeeded by a Republican instead of her.
Exposing this issue is damaging to the Clintons regardless, though, because it's a constant reminder that their incredible wealth was basically the result of influence peddling. No one with a straight face could argue that Bill Clinton's sage counsel alone was worth over $100 million.
How do you spell "scumbags"?
Exposing this issue is damaging to the Clintons regardless, though, because it's a constant reminder that their incredible wealth was basically the result of influence peddling. No one with a straight face could argue that Bill Clinton's sage counsel alone was worth over $100 million.
Looking as how he had the world's greatest pickup line and settled for Monica ... yeah, his sage counsel is highly overrated.
I do love that the slobbering lickspittles that the Clintons count on for "rapid response" (including "journalist" David Brock) are reacting to this in the lamest way possible--point out that the author of the book is conservative and has been wrong about other things before! Yes, that sounds like the response of people who have nothing to hide--irrelevant ad hominem attacks.
How would a normal, non-sociopathic person respond? State that you welcome the inquiry, you have nothing to hide, and you did everything above board. Then when the specific attacks come out, refute them.
But no, we have the Clintons to deal with and slime and grime is all they ever know. These are nasty people, both them and their supporters, and we are getting repeated warnings of what they'd bring to the White House.
With the Clintons back in, Democrats might realize that the Bushes weren't so bad, and Republicans might actually miss the honesty and transparency of Obama--hard as either of those might be to imagine now.
The Clintons are truly in a class by themselves.
Do not say bad of Hillary, lest you are a misogynist.
Do not say bad of Obama, least you are a racist.
And that is the way it's gonna be for the MSM.
Hillary does have far more experience than Obama at graft,
I saw Brock on MSNBC this AM. They gave him a hard time. This scandal may have legs.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा