Althouse: "I heard an earful last night [at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner] from various Democrats, some who work in the Clinton campaign that said, 'Why is she still taking foreign donations?'"

April 26, 2015

"I heard an earful last night [at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner] from various Democrats, some who work in the Clinton campaign that said, 'Why is she still taking foreign donations?'"

"Why is the Foundation — they narrowed it down, now they are going to take them from European countries and Canada. They got rid of some of the despot states."

Chuck Todd, today, on "Meet the Press."

35 comments:

Big Mike said...: Because she assumes she can get away with it. Why else?; 4/26/15, 6:48 PM
MAJMike said...: Because she can and the DemCong will return to her like a poodle to its vomit.; 4/26/15, 7:07 PM
Sebastian said...: “It could even be fatal to Clinton’s candidacy, if it balloons into an ongoing story and the Republicans open a congressional investigation.” Said Willie Brown.

Dems will do their best to prick the balloon.

Past grifter gambles have paid off. They're betting they'll get away with it again.

Question: did Bill and Hill decide on the private server as part of their influence-peddling scheme from the outset? If so, who else is in on it? Not sure if Schweizer got the real inner circle to talk; subpoenas should finish the job.; 4/26/15, 7:11 PM
Achilles said...: Maybe we will get rid of "non-profit" foundations altogether.; 4/26/15, 7:11 PM
damikesc said...: Because, Chuck, they and you will support her anyways.; 4/26/15, 7:18 PM
Bob Boyd said...: The next one down:

"Bloomberg Politics’ John Heilemann said......And when you think about the president having set a standard of being the most transparent and open administration in history and what the Clintons have done here clearly is not the most transparent and open. And I think they’ve—whether it’s illegal or not—violated the spirit of President Obama’s presidency.”

He went on:
Violating the law is one thing... that's ...Well, it wouldn't be.....disqualifying, would it?....It's...It's understandable... to, uh... some degree....for most Americans...I believe.
But violating the spirit of President Obama's presidency.....this is...this is truly.... We're going to have to....we're going to have to..This is upsetting for journalists, I think. Disturbing. We're not liking this at all...no. President Obama, he....oh goodness....Why? Why would she...What in the.....Why!?
You know what? I need to call Ezra. He'll know what to... we all need to talk to Ezra and just calm down, I think is what needs to happen.; 4/26/15, 7:19 PM
rhhardin said...: When the Clintons make a bank deposit, they fill out despot slips.; 4/26/15, 7:21 PM
damikesc said...: Can they prove this money isn't going to finance her campaign at all?

A thorough audit is needed.; 4/26/15, 7:25 PM
Beth said...: What are the chances Kerry is behind some of the info leaks. He's hearing from all those who donated to Hillary wondering what he's going to do for them.; 4/26/15, 7:29 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Bob Boyd--violating the "spirit of the Obama Presidency"? Please. This most transparent administration in history has built more miles of stone walls to cover its sleazy tracks than all the farmers in the hill country of New Hampshire and Vermont ever did.; 4/26/15, 7:34 PM
chickelit said...: Pulitzer Prize-Winning Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: 'I think what still boggles the mind, why doesn’t Hillary deal with this herself right now… I think she has to answer this herself.'

I can't wait to recite her remarks in a Dick Nixon voice.; 4/26/15, 7:42 PM
Bob Boyd said...: @Skeptical Voter

I didn't say that. It's a quote from John Heilemann. He actually said that.
I'm just making fun of the guy.; 4/26/15, 8:03 PM
MAJMike said...: Pulitzer Prize-Winning Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: 'I think what still boggles the mind, why doesn’t Hillary deal with this herself right now… I think she has to answer this herself.'

Doris Kearns Goodwin!?! Is she still plagiarizing other people's research?; 4/26/15, 8:18 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: >> 'Why is she still taking foreign donations?'""

They have a budget.; 4/26/15, 9:06 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: damikesc said...

"Can they prove this money isn't going to finance her campaign at all?"

That's one reason for getting a lot of money into her own name.; 4/26/15, 9:08 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: damikesc said...

"Can they prove this money isn't going to finance her campaign at all?"

That's one reason for getting a lot of money into her own name.; 4/26/15, 9:08 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: I made my mistakes, but in all my years of public life, I have never profited from public service. I've earned every cent. And in all of my years in public life I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life that I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their Secretary Of State was a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.; 4/26/15, 9:09 PM
kcom said...: Because she's a greedy, unaccountable sonofabitch.; 4/26/15, 9:21 PM
Paul said...: Why?

Cause to stop taking the money is sort of an admission of guilt. Plus, she has lots of debts to others SHE has to pay off.

Cash flow is needed.; 4/26/15, 9:24 PM
JackWayne said...: I certainly feel better knowing that her bribes in the future will come from democratic countries instead of despotic countries. Makes all the difference in how I think.; 4/26/15, 9:57 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Well, not sure about the despot thing, the way Canada keeps prosecuting people who criticize Islamic terror supporters...; 4/26/15, 10:12 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This is sooo different from billionaires financing Republican elections.; 4/27/15, 12:04 AM
PackerBronco said...: The Clinton's greatest fear is the "preference cascade". Once people (dems right now) begin to realize that Hillary is not inevitable, she will be in trouble.; 4/27/15, 12:08 AM
PackerBronco said...: Blogger Michael McClain said...
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: 'I think what still boggles the mind, why doesn’t Hillary deal with this herself right now… I think she has to answer this herself.'

It only boggles the mind if you think she's innocent.; 4/27/15, 12:09 AM
Brando said...: It is surprisingly self destructive when you consider how unnecessary it is. Would Hillary not still be the presumptive front-runner if they HADN'T taken all those foreign bribes? Would the Clintons not still be rich and connected, if only having made their money by selling memoirs?

The only exlanation is to consider the entitled mind--when you believe you're entitled and that you can get away with anything, you don't think like a prudent person. You push too far and sometimes hang yourself.

The question is whether the American voters (and first, the Democrats) will have decided they went too far. Bill Clinton proved back in the '90s that extramarital affairs weren't enough to sink a politician. We're about to find out if taking bribes isn't enough to sink a politician, either.; 4/27/15, 7:24 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: See see see! The Clintons past corruption is going to stop now! So we can move on.; 4/27/15, 7:33 AM
Clyde said...: "SOME of the despot states"? Well, that's reassuring, isn't it?; 4/27/15, 7:40 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: The Clinton foundation is a slush fund. It's barely a charity at all.; 4/27/15, 8:03 AM
Curious George said...: " 'Why is she still taking foreign donations?"

Because they're supporters are morally and intellectually corrupt pieces of shit who's only care is the cause. Enter this as Exhibit A:

"Rhythm and Balls said...
This is sooo different from billionaires financing Republican elections."

The prosecution rests.; 4/27/15, 8:05 AM
lemondog said...: This is sooo different from billionaires financing Republican elections.

ahuh

Soros donates $1.5 million to pro-Obama super PACs

LI's James Simons biggest donor to Democratic super PACs

George Soros going to bat for Hillary Clinton; 4/27/15, 8:35 AM
Brando said...: "The Clinton foundation is a slush fund. It's barely a charity at all."

If it's true that the Foundation gave only 15% of its take to charity in some years, how does this compare to most similarly sized corporations' charitable giving? If Microsoft donated more than 15% of its profits to charity one year, what would this say about the Clinton Foundation?

Time to blow the lid off this scam. Face it, Democrats, the Clintons are cheap hustlers. Time to find some dignity and jettison these creeps.; 4/27/15, 8:44 AM
chickelit said...: Time to blow the lid off this scam. Face it, Democrats, the Clintons are cheap hustlers. Time to find some dignity and jettison these creeps.

No, I'd rather see them follow her ad absurdum.; 4/27/15, 9:00 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Because she figures if she wins, who is going to investigate her? It's a calculated risk.; 4/27/15, 9:40 AM
Lydia said...: Maybe we're about to find out just who has called the shots in the Clinton game from the get-go. My money's on Bill. Here's Vox on his stake in all this:

"Don't expect the Clintons to shut down their charity or even to really distance themselves from it. It's easy to forget that Bill Clinton has a huge personal stake in what he's built, a modern post-presidency that has fortified and improved his reputation.

Last year, Gallup reported that Bill Clinton had the highest favorability rating among living US presidents, at 64 percent. He's bobbed between 60 percent and 66 percent in recent years. The foundation's work is an important part of his legacy, possibly more important than what he did in office, and it is well-positioned to outlive him.

The fact that critics are trying to tear down what he's built makes him all the more likely to hold on tighter. And, as Hillary Clinton has been known to say, incoming fire is evidence that you've been hitting the right targets.

So while there is a fundamental competition between the best interests of the foundation and those of Hillary Clinton's campaign, the Clintons' instinct is to manage the damage rather than remove the threat to her campaign altogether. If they can get away with it, they'd like to win the presidency back without giving up the reins of the foundation."

And if, as Willie Brown noted, the whole set-up "could even be fatal to Clinton’s candidacy," that might just be an added bonus for Bill.; 4/27/15, 3:05 PM
chickelit said...: Lydia notes: And if, as Willie Brown noted, the whole set-up "could even be fatal to Clinton’s candidacy," that might just be an added bonus for Bill.

I would expect both Bill and Hillary Clinton to do exactly as you suggest. It is after all in their best interest. I'm not really interested in them. I'm interested in the people who stand up and say "Yay Bill...Yay Hill! I want to know what legitimate self interest drives them. I've already concluded that voting for Hillary is not in my best interest.; 4/27/15, 7:01 PM