April 24, 2015

"To single out the Clintons for having wealthy friends who might want favors later, especially in the political context brought to us by the destruction of campaign finance regulations..."

"... is a particularly laughable application of the Clinton Rules which, like the Voting Rights Act and McCain-Feingold, have been rendered irrelevant by Citizens United and its unholy progeny."

Writes Charles Pierce at Esquire in a piece titled "The Return To Mena Airport: It Begins Again/In which we learn that rich people like the Clintons have lots of money."

I copied that sentence because it's such a mess of a sentence, almost as much of a jumble as that title. (Do you remember Mena Airport? Mena-ither.) I don't know how disordered the mind of Charles Pierce really is. I'm sure his style amuses the people it amuses, and I assume those people are people who respond to Citizens United!!!!

But Pierce's invocation of the much-invoked case name comes in a context of very specific misrepresentation of the meaning of that case. Citizens United and its "unholy progeny" involve judges doing judicial work — saying what rights are and putting constitutional law in its proper place in the hierarchy of law, above statutes.

We could talk about whether we agree with the interpretation of the First Amendment in those cases, in which the Supreme Court has invalidated some statutory restrictions on spending money to propagate political speech, but that's not what Pierce is talking about. He's not talking about how statutes and constitutional law are sorted out by judges in court cases. He's talking about the political debate among us, The People. A candidate's wealth and how it was acquired and whether he might be beholden to some interests or even corrupt are going to be issues as we decide whether we want to vote for that candidate. Citizens United and its "unholy progeny" don't say we voters shouldn't concern ourselves with such things. In fact, Citizens United makes a point of upholding disclosure requirements, so that voters get more information about where money is coming from:
The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.
Citizens United isn't somehow telling us to pay no attention to money. It's saying the solution, in a system of free speech, is to learn about how the money is flowing and to think about it and talk about it in the political arena and to evaluate candidates accordingly. That's absolutely consistent with the idea that we should focus on "the Clintons for having wealthy friends who might want favors later." And it's silly to say — as Pierce did — that we're singling them out. It would make more sense to say that Pierce is trying give them special magic immunity from a kind of inquiry that is applied to every other candidate.

That reminds me: Here's Mitt Romney talking to Hugh Hewitt about the Clinton Foundation and the Russians getting control of Uranium One.
MR: You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery. I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails. But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.... This is a very troubling set of facts, and clearly, there’s got to be some kind of investigation to find out what the truth is here, because around the world, people are going to look at Hillary Clinton, a potential candidate for president, a former Secretary of State, and say gosh, is this a person who could be trusted? And I think the American people are asking that question as well.

94 comments:

Paul said...

"To single out the Clintons for having wealthy friends who might want favors later, especially in the political context brought to us by the destruction of campaign finance regulations..."

Sorry but the others don't have a "Clinton Foundation" to accept the bribes for them.

And they are not 'friends' but countries, including some like Russia, that are enemies.

Achilles said...

We have known that Bill and Hillary are soulless and wretched. The level of obviousness will just serve to out their supporters as the same type of scum.

YoungHegelian said...

CU has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a high government official, while in office, receiving a large amount of money from a (now-hostile) foreign government with the seeming expectation of a quid pro quo.

Expect more & more Democrats to blow gaskets as it becomes increasingly evident that the Hillary campaign is imploding, and they got nuthin', nuthin.

And it'll serve 'em right, too. Both the (further) Left & the entire spectrum of the Right told the establishment Democrats that HRC was a corrupt narcissist who trailed scandal everywhere she went. But, no, they were the smartest guys in the room, and they knew what was what.

Yeah, right.

mccullough said...

If the Clinton Foundation were limited to $2,000 a person contribution, and no corporate contributions, every two years, it would be out of business.

The Clinton's are accused of personally taking money, not receiving good publicity paid for by someone else.

Pierce knows less about politics and law then he does about sports.

Xmas said...

What's even funnier is that the Citizens United case was about an organization trying to showcase a documentary film about the many scandals in the past of Hillary Clinton.

I think any call about the "problem" of Citizens United should include the qualifier, "Citizens United, the case where the FEC's ruling that a documentary about Hillary Clinton's scandals was illegal electioneering was overturned by the Supreme Court."

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I've been saying forever that Hilary will not run because there is no way the Dems will allow themselves to put all their eggs in the Clinton basket. Oops I was really really wrong. So let me try it again.

There is no way Hilary will be the nominee .

Gabriel said...

Let's not forget that Citizens United was an attempt to surpress speech specifically about Hillary Clinton.

I don't think invoking Citizens United works in Hillary Clinton's favor at all.

Mike said...

Hillary's troubles have nothing to do with Citizens United and this is just a mantra like "Koch Brothers" or "Dark Money" that Progressives use to signal their bonafides. As the WSJ wrote today, Hillary wants to use all of the above -- and the fact she raised millions in a sleazy and suspect way -- as a pretext for denying others their first amendment rights. This is of a theme with other stories we've followed this week.

Why do Regressives always want to limit speech for others?

n.n said...

Yeah, government financial schemes, public and private union corporations, non-profit corporations, transfer payments (e.g. welfare), untraceable credit card payments (e.g. foreign credit infusions), insecure voting machines, excessive and illegal immigration, and millions of aborted citizens annually has left this "democracy" in a shambles. It's ironic that they would mention "progeny".

The loss of a uranium asset is the least of America's strategic concerns.

Tank said...

Think of the collection of people they trot out to defend the Clintons. Every time I see one of them I feel like I need a shower.

You don't get that with Zero. That's an articulate and bright and clean con job there. No shower needed.

The difference between the big Vagina and the big Zero explained in one easy lesson.

Hmmm, sounds sexist when you put it that way, but hey, Clinton chose to run as the big Vagina, I didn't do that.

Robert Cook said...

"And they are not 'friends' but countries, including some like Russia, that are enemies."

Um...who says Russia is our "enemy?" Since the fall of the Soviets, aren't we allies, at least, purportedly? (As, even our most faithful allies are only so provisionally, are only allies until we decide they aren't.)

Henry said...

Attica! Attica!

Quaestor said...

Um...who says Russia is our "enemy?" Since the fall of the Soviets, aren't we allies, at least, purportedly?

Purportedly by whom?

Mike said...

Xmas: And yet the use of lawfare by the FEC kept the CU film from being shown -- prior restraint of 1A rights -- until the SCOTUS could rule on it.

And let's not forget there were FOUR fucking judges were happy to squelch speech because they didn't like criticism of Hillary!

Quaestor said...

Why do Regressives always want to limit speech for others?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

Henry said...

As a lesson on political discourse, Dog Day Afternoon is unimpeachable.

There is nothing new under the sun.

lgv said...

Even if CU were not about Hillary, it is still a non-sequitur. If CU had been decided the other way, what we are talking about would have happened anyway.

Mike said...

Quaestor: Yep!

Brando said...

I don't recall any Supreme Court case upholding bribery. Typical of Clinton slobberers--try making it seem that they're only doing what everyone else does, and singling them out is unfair.

Their other two tactics are to attack the credibility of the source, and to claim this is all old news.

mccullough said...

I'd say Putin is close to being our enemy. But Russians in general aren't enemies of the U.S. nor is Russia.

Todd said...

The Clintons are just upping the game of "after the election I will be more flexible" to be "thanks for this money, after the election I will be more flexible" and all the while Barry is wondering "why did I think of that?".

Sigivald said...

When someone complains about Citizens United I know they're either simply ignorant (the usual case) or, in the case of people who can't not know better, hostile to free political speech.

Or at least to free political speech that is by the "wrong" people for the "wrong" ends.

("So you're telling me the Government should be able to stop people from showing a movie critical of a politician, because an election is near?"

Evidently, if the people in question are mean ol' "right-wingers" and the politician's name is Clinton.)

PackerBronco said...

I guess I missed that part in Citizen's United where it made it legal for a sitting Secretary of State to sell out the country.

Damn Citizen's United to hell!!!! It hath corrupted the noble and selfless Clintons! Who amongst us is safe from its corrupting influence? Even I am now sorely tempted to ride the Madison Bike Path w/out purchasing a trail pass and all because of Citizen's United. Damn you again!!!

Todd said...

PackerBronco said...
Even I am now sorely tempted to ride the Madison Bike Path w/out purchasing a trail pass and all because of Citizen's United. Damn you again!!!
4/24/15, 11:52 AM


You too? Due to Citizen's United I have been tempted to (gasp) put puppies in blenders!

Blast you, Citizen's United!

Bay Area Guy said...

Remember the name "Charles Pierce"

He's a faux-journalist, true-Clinton apologist, who just politically outed himself.

Instapundit calls them "Democrat operatives with bylines"

For all future pieces, he should have this disclaimer: "the writer is a smart fellow trying to write good published pieces in various publications. However, he shares a Democrat world view, which guides his thinking and his writing."


There's nothing wrong being all in for a political ideology or party. But the veil of neutrality is deceptive.

Henry said...

He's a faux-journalist, true-Clinton apologist, who just politically outed himself.

The word "just" is unnecessary.

Charles Pierce is not a reporter. He is an opinion writer who specializes in screeds. He's an exemplar of our age.

MadisonMan said...

I try to think if this article would be similar if the person accepting all the money for speeches was a Republican.

I think not.

Anonymous said...

It's articles like this that make you appreciate Garage Mahal, whose stupid, subject-changing snark is at least concise.

Mike said...

Sigivald:
When someone complains about Citizens United I know they're either simply ignorant (the usual case) or, in the case of people who can't not know better, hostile to free political speech.

What IF it had been decided the other way? The an FEC packed by a (R) president could have preempted all the network programming that is critical of Republicans? Stopped movies from having conservative villains?

Progs are unafraid of these potential outcomes to their schemes. Why?

1. They know the machinery of opprobrium can be turned around and they'll argue the exact opposite of what they argued regarding CU.
2. The universe of "in-kind" contribution that the popular culture can generate are simply too great for R's to overcome.
3. The Stupid Party just doesn't get it and engage in the culture enough to matter.

BarrySanders20 said...

The artist who did the iconic HOPE poster for Obama should do another for Hill.

Same fuzzy pastel look, but with

TAINT

Bruce Hayden said...

Rush suggested today that Hillary! Can't drop out and not run. Too many questionable people have spent way too many millions of dollars buying influence in the upcoming Clinton II Administration for them to back out now. She makes enough in one speech to make her a 1% if she stopped with one speech a year, and Bill makes half again as much. 1, 2, or maybe even 300 million since Bill left office, and that doesn't include their family slush fund/foundation, that has collected many times that. What were all those people, those foreign govts, Russian plutocrats, Arab Shieks, etc , expecting to get with all that money they gave the Clintons? They expect political favors, and that mostly means they expect a Hillary! Administration that can pay off those debts. And, many of them are not nice people.

Chuck said...

Singling out people like the Clinton's is something we should do a lot more of.

They don't need to be singled out because they are rich alone. What they need to be singled out for, is the fact that they grew pretty fabulously wealthy as a direct and proximate result of public office. And in that respect they are like some of the more notorious crooks in American history. Lyndon Baines Johnson is another guy like that. His income from work was never more than a few thousand dollars. He was a dirt poor child, scrapped his way through education, became a schoolteacher, then a Conressman and later a Senator. By the time the Kennedy's asked LBJ to run for VP, LBJ and Lady Bird were millionaires thanks in large part to the ownership of radio stations, the licenses for which were secured by LBJ's political maneuvers.

Harry Reid is another. A near-failure as a personal injury lawyer, he is a multimillionaire thanks to his political dealings.

I don't begrudge anyone's status as a millionaire. But people who make millions in the private sector are to be respected whereas people who make millions on the side as a result of holding public office ought to be investigated.

Robert Cook said...

"'Um...who says Russia is our "enemy?" Since the fall of the Soviets, aren't we allies, at least, purportedly?'

"Purportedly by whom?"

By our government.

Chuck said...

Yuck! All those typos! And so many of them (like possessfying plural names with an apostrophe) caused by auto-correct!

Brent said...

Citizens United, the pesky case upholding the right to make a movie containing political criticism. What happened to the left? There was a time when it embraced free speech.

Want to try something fun the next time your liberal friend mentions the evil Citizens United case? Ask him to give you the basic facts of the case. 9.9 out of 10 times, he can't. Instead, he will try and give you the incorrect holding - corporations are people or corporations have free speech rights, or there can be no limit on money corrupting politics. But you won't get a single material fact from the case.

If he is reasonable, you can try and enlighten him about the facts. I think most reasonable people would agree with the holding once they understand the facts. But it is a long shot.

CStanley said...

"'Um...who says Russia is our "enemy?"

Mitt Romney, in exhibit 342.5a of Why We Should Have Elected Him.

Rick said...

"YoungHegelian said...
CU has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with a high government official, while in office, receiving a large amount of money from a (now-hostile) foreign government with the seeming expectation of a quid pro quo."


This is exactly right. So are the people saying this stupid or are they merely targeting stupid people with these absurd excuses?

AJ Lynch said...

A reporter or a Republican should pose this question to Hillary:

"why did you see the need to establish your own non-profit foundation when there were already hundreds if not thousands doing good, charitable work?..why didn't you and your family just encourage your friends and associates to give generously, in your name, to those existing charities?"

garage mahal said...

Wow. Criticizing the Clintons free speech rights is fascism. Just WOW.

MountainMan said...

Citizens United! Koch Brothers! Dark Money! GEORGE BUSH!!! The things the left tries to use to justify their silly positions are just laughable. However, I guess since he invoked CU here it will strikd a chord with his lefty audience.

I think i would like to see some of the Republican candidates, rather than Rush, calling for her to drop out. Now, that could really get interesting. I don't think they'll do it, but I cant't think of any leading candidate in my lifetime with such high negatives this earlly in the cycle. I guess if there is one who would do it that woudl be Fiorina. After all, like Glenn says, she's willing to fight. Plus, she's a woman and that would take the predictable sexism charge out of it. I don't think she has a chance at the nomination but she could be the pit bull that makes this entertaining and maybe wakes people up to what crooks the Clintons are. God forbid this woman ever makes it to the White House.

Greek Donkey said...

Ann,
Did you ever read Charles McCArry's "Lucky Bastard"? Very enjoyable 1990s take on a Bill amd Hillary couple with VERY close Russian connection.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/13/books/books-of-the-times-weaseling-a-mole-into-the-white-house.html

garage mahal said...

The Clinton's are accused of personally taking money,

I think you mean personally facilitating a free speech exchange. If you object to that, you are a straight up Nazi.

madAsHell said...

I googled Mena airport. It is an airport in Arkansas.

Beyond this, there appears to be some story about cocaine, gun-running, Mena airport, Ollie North, El Salvador, and Bill Clinton.

I stopped reading because I couldn't understand how all those points could make a straight line.

cfkane1701 said...

Consider that Charles Pierce wrote a book called, "Idiot America," which seems to be code language for "Conservative America." Find it through the Amazon portal.

Scott M said...

because around the world, people are going to look at Hillary Clinton, a potential candidate for president, a former Secretary of State, and say gosh, is this a person who could be trusted?

Some might ask that question. Others around the world are going to start asking what the going rate is.

Scott M said...

Um...who says Russia is our "enemy?" Since the fall of the Soviets, aren't we allies, at least, purportedly? (As, even our most faithful allies are only so provisionally, are only allies until we decide they aren't.)

Wow.

Gabriel said...

@garage mahal:Wow. Criticizing the Clintons free speech rights is fascism. Just WOW.

Fascism is using police power against political speech, which fascist action you and Hillary Clinton support.

Taking money from foreigners as Secretary of State is a conflict of interest, and you support that, apparently, when it's Team Blue.

But you are just trolling now.

Gabriel said...

@garage mahal:I think you mean personally facilitating a free speech exchange. If you object to that, you are a straight up Nazi.

If you really think you've shown the equivalence, you are an idiot. I don't think you are quite that stupid, you are just trolling.

And they're not even paying you. I can see why Sid Blumenthal and James Carville do it, because I can see what they have gained from it.

sydney said...

I have always suspected the House of Cards characters were based on the Clintons. Thinking that more every day.

Matthew Sablan said...

It's not that they might want favors later. It is that it appears that they wanted favors in the past and received them.

garage mahal said...

Taking money from foreigners as Secretary of State is a conflict of interest, and you support that, apparently, when it's Team Blue.

I'm sure Hillary talked to a lot of foreigners. That was her job.

johns said...

Hillary is a political prisoner. She is the most high profile political prisoner in the world today. She is a prisoner of "inevitability", a prisoner of her poll numbers, and a prisoner of the (implied?) promises to those who pre-paid for stolen goods. So whether she is enjoying her candidacy or not, she is commanded to march on.

Michael The Magnificent said...

I can understand why incumbent politicians would want to abrogate our right to confront them with our grievances, but why are leftists - so-called champions of civil rights - on board with this?

And if "corporations aren't people" someone tell all of the corporate-owned newspapers, television, and radio stations that they need to shut down ASAP, because they aren't people, and thus do not get to enjoy first amendment rights, at least according to the lefties in this country.

Is that really what you lefties want? To silence anyone not rich enough to wholly own a newspaper, a radio station, or a television station?

Todd said...

Michael The Magnificent said...

Is that really what you lefties want? To silence anyone not rich enough to wholly own a newspaper, a radio station, or a television station?

4/24/15, 1:47 PM


No, no, no! You completely misunderstand! Corporations are NOT people and get NO 1st A rights except for Hollywood, newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations (except talk radio).

Get with the program already!

garage mahal said...

Hope you all aren't suggesting that money is not free speech, and that accepting money in a position of power is unethical. Even discussing this could be construed as silencing people wanting to engage in free speech.

Really hoping that isn't the case.

Michael said...

Garage

Honey, you so don't get it.

deepelemblues said...

Charles Pierce is the highest-paid high school junior blogger ever. The man is an embarrassment. It's amazing he hasn't dropped dead from apoplexy with all the rage he spews out.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Please don't feed the trolls.

iowan2 said...

A simple question for Hillary. If elected President, will you allow your cabinet secretaries to operate exactly as you done? Private email, family allowed to do contract work for corporations, nations, etc.

Jim in St Louis said...

We all have reasons that we do things. Usually we are aware of those reasons but sometimes it is hidden, even from our own eyes.
Hillary will always self-destruct. She will always create the situation that causes her own downfall. Like Nixon she will give them the sword and show them exactly where to stab her.

She craves humiliation on some deep basic level. It is a common pathology. (50 Shades of something or other)
One can only speculate as to the why, maybe she likes the feeling of being strong while standing up to the worst that the world can throw at her. So she structures her behavior to allow her to have that feeling. But when you are a woman of Hillary’s talent and ambition then the humiliation must be equally intense.

Howard said...

Cook: If Russia was an ally, wouldn't they be in NATO? If they were an ally, why does our government sponsor an anti-ballistic missile defense on their frontier?

Just because you are not one of professor Althouses teabagging chickenhawk bigots doesn't mean your not a complete and total ideological tool!

Anonymous said...

This is one of the insidious powers of Democrats and liberals that Conservatives need to figure out how to emulate.

Esquire magazine?

The left controls all these magazines. And all the talking head comedy shows. And they choose and set the narrative. They speak to millions of low information voters who have never seen fox news or heard of Hugh Hewitt, etc.

This is how they get their political news. Through idiots at Esquire magazine, or one of the other myriad of magazines that lay in the dentists office.

It's a treasure trove of lazy votes that Conservatives haven't figured out how to tap yet.

Brent said...

"I think you mean personally facilitating a free speech exchange. If you object to that, you are a straight up Nazi."

Garage can now be counted as the 99.99% of liberals who don't understand the facts of Citizens United. Garage, please read it so you don't look so ignorant.

Robert Cook said...

Hillary Clinton and the Ratfuckers

Anonymous said...

When do we get to be treated to the Clinton defense of, "Both sides do it!"??

Gabriel said...

@Brent:Garage can now be counted as the 99.99% of liberals who don't understand the facts of Citizens United.

No, he's trolling. He knows exactly what he is doing.

He understand the facts perfectly, but has chosen to lie about them to annoy people here.

His comments to this post are little more than "I know you are but what am I?"

theribbonguy said...

OOooooo..."teabagging chickenhawk bigot"

Where do I get the T-shirt?

Charlie said...

Pierce attended Marquette.

Birches said...

Hillary's troubles have nothing to do with Citizens United and this is just a mantra like "Koch Brothers" or "Dark Money" that Progressives use to signal their bonafides.

And BOOOOOOOSH!1!

Howard said...

theribbonguy: t-shirt not needed when you have the mark of the beast: sloping forehead, prominent brow ridge and shifty eyes spaced too close together.

Bruce Hayden said...

It's not that they might want favors later. It is that it appears that they wanted favors in the past and received them.

If you are talking about the people who have made the Clintons filthy rich, and given even more to their foundation/slush fund, I am not sure I completely agree. We are talking a lot of money, and I think that some of it may have been spent to procure future benefits, as contrasted to just paying for benefits in the past.

As I think I indicated above, Rush is the one who made this suggestion on his show today, and it rang true to me, that the Clintons cannot back out now, with favors already sold to some less than reputable people for large amounts of monies. We shall see.

Howard said...

Cook:

Nice link. I need to read counterpunch more often.

theribbonguy said...

"theribbonguy: t-shirt not needed when you have the mark of the beast: sloping forehead, prominent brow ridge and shifty eyes spaced too close together"

Ok then...where do I find those? Aside from a Howard family reunion that is.

Michael K said...

Dos anyone still read Esquire ?

JAORE said...

As the bell is to Pavlov's dog so are:

Citizens United, Koch Brothers, (formerly) Halliburton, and on and on to the hard left.

They may not even know why they are salivating, but the volume of drool is most impressive.

Michael K said...

"I think you mean personally facilitating a free speech exchange. If you object to that, you are a straight up Nazi. "

I never knew that uranium was free speech. Thanks, garage.

David said...

Pretty soon Elizabeth Warren is going to conclude that she owes it to America to give the Democratic Party a choice. Or if she has any balls she will. Clinton is a sitting duck in a bathtub with no stopper. Round and round and round she gooooooeeeessssss . . .

If you like an Obama presidency, you're gonna love President Warren.

And don't think she can't win. She surely can.

zefal said...

Here's five charles pierce's pieces in which he tells us that rich people like the Kochs have lots of money. Oh, and they're evil as a result.

Two Unaccountable Guys, All The Power

Have A Koch And A Smile

The New Koch

The Koch Brothers Aren't Going Anywhere

The Cri De Koch

David said...

Remember this, Althouse?
(March 31, 2012)

3. You [Pierce] repeat your accusation that Scalia is "just not trying very hard anymore." But Pierce, you lazy, lazy man. You are not trying at all.

4. But I am an idiot. An idiot to send this loser any more traffic. But I just had to kick his flabby old ass one more time.


Words to live by.

Anonymous said...

There was a time, not so long ago, that wealthy folks who assumed public office put their investments into a blind trust in order to avoid possible conflicts of interest. How quaint that now seems! As for the Clinton Foundation, you'd think any charitable organization that takes in so much money would have seen the advantages of spending just a bit of that money to hire a top tier CPA firm to conduct rigorous yearly audits of its financial records.

PackerBronco said...

you'd think any charitable organization that takes in so much money would have seen the advantages of spending just a bit of that money to hire a top tier CPA firm to conduct rigorous yearly audits of its financial records.

Don't be stupid. They don't want rigorous yearly audits because they don't want a top tier CPA firm to find something.

Mark O said...

Pierce made his name by publishing the off-the-record comments of a very young Tiger Woods. His ethics have not improved nor has his writing skill.

Mark O said...

I see that garage is struggling here, thinking that the mere acceptance of money is free speech. Wrong.

I can make this easy to understand. When Bill received $500K from Russia, the US Secretary of State received $500K from Russia. She held a beneficial interest in the money.

True, that was for every speech Bill gave while she was Secretary of State.

True also for every dime of donation to the Clinton Charity. She was a beneficial owner.

It's just not that hard. No free speech issue. Maybe a criminal law issue.

RecChief said...

and again, the key word in Citizens United is Citizen.


Rather different to allow actual citizens to contribute money to whichever political campaign they fancy as opposed to accepting millions of dollars from foreign governments or agents of foreign governments.

I assume that some unholy progeny of MMFA or Hillary's PAC will be along to argue though.

Unknown said...

Charles Pierce is a slathering imbecile. Its astounding he stays employed in an industry that should have cogent thinking people presenting ideas.

Gahrie said...

Pierce made his name by publishing the off-the-record comments of a very young Tiger Woods. His ethics have not improved nor has his writing skill.

At least he's not David Brock......

bgates said...

As all of this news is coming out about the Clintons, they must be wondering who has authorized it. Obama is one of the very few plausible suspects who could get the NYT and WaPo to publish information damaging to Bill and Hillary. The Clintons are aware of that. How will they respond?

Probably they won't release equally damning information about Obama. That could only happen if
1) Obama is unable to convince the Clintons that they can trust him when he says he isn't behind the leaks, and
2) the people leaking the information aren't smart enough to accurately predict how the Clintons will react, and
3) the Clintons actually have damning information on Obama, and
4) the Clintons are vindictive enough to turn on an ideological ally.

On the other hand, if all of those four points were true....

Steven said...

Rich people like the Clintons have lots of money, sure. So, um, how exactly did the Clintons become rich?

I mean, neither inherited much wealth, even if Hillary's parents weren't poor. The actual jobs the Clintons have held -- staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund; law professor at the University of Arkansas; law professor at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; Attorney General of Arkansas; partner at the Rose Law Firm; Governor of Arkansas; partner at Wright, Lindsey and Jennings; President; Senator; Secretary of State -- all paid reasonably well, but hardly great riches.

If the Clintons are rich, they became rich through some means other than their inheritances or their jobs. I guess it's possible that it's investment income from brilliant financial speculations, but that hasn't been disclosed.

If you're a Marxist, who thinks ordinary riches are the immoral result of exploitation, that the Clintons are wealthy solely because rich people gave them millions of dollars isn't any more a particular problem than the fact that they're rich at all. The rest of us, though, look at people who have become wealthy without apparently doing anything for it, and think it's fair to ask if the "apparent" is actually the truth.

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
Taking money from foreigners as Secretary of State is a conflict of interest, and you support that, apparently, when it's Team Blue.

I'm sure Hillary talked to a lot of foreigners. That was her job.

4/24/15, 1:28 PM"

Its not the talking, It's the bribe taking. But then again, you have no principles.

Fen said...

Shorter blog post: MiniTru has decided that wealth is now doubleplusgood. Wealth has always been doubleplusgood.


JournoList powers activate!

"Shape of, a weasel"

"Form of, a shill"

ganderson said...

Charlie Pierce is one of the commentators on "Only a Game" or as it's called in our house, "Sports for Liberals". He also wrote a piece for the Boston Globe Sunday magazine (it could have been the New York Times mag- my memory ain't what it used to be)on Ted Kennedy, in which he wrote something like (I quote from memory) "If Mary Jo Koepechne were alive today she'd appreciate all the legislation that Senator Kennedy has been responsible for." I remember at the time parsing the article for irony, and finding none.
On a different note I recall hosting a dinner party, here in "Madison on the Connecticut" where I asked the women in the group, all of whom were quite professionally accomplished, why they were so impressed by Hillary! The most they could come up with was "She went to Wellesley"

Fritz said...

I'm trying to find the difference between the Clintons and Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and I can't find one, except that the Clintons did it on a much huger scale, and they have the federal prosecutors and the press in their corner.

ken in tx said...

I think Hillary is 2/3s through the Bart Simpson defense. “I didn't do it. Nobody saw me. You can't prove it.” She now seems to be at the “You can't prove it.” stage.

avwh said...

How convenient, that Hillary's camp says "you can't prove it" - after they ran a private email server while she was SoS, and subsequently deleted all the emails that could be incriminating evidence.