• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

The fight for our country is always worth it. ~Kamala Harris

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

After dobbs, women are no longer free.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

“I was told there would be no fact checking.”

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / An Unexamined Scandal / Getting The Band Back Together / The New King Of Shiny Objects

The New King Of Shiny Objects

by Zandar|  April 23, 20159:27 am| 130 Comments

This post is in: Getting The Band Back Together, Hillary Clinton 2016, Blatant Liars and the Lies They Tell, Bring on the Brawndo!, Decline and Fall, I Reject Your Reality and Substitute My Own, Our Failed Media Experiment, Republican Crime Syndicate - aka the Bush Admin., Somewhere a Village is Missing its Idiot

FacebookTweetEmail

Is it irresponsible to speculate that the Clinton Foundation took millions from a Canadian firm after the State Department signed off on selling the firm’s uranium assets to Russia?  Why, the liberal NY Times says “It’s irresponsible not to.”

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the 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.

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.

Gosh, this seems all scary and stuff.  Where did this speculation come from? A meticulously researched source, correct?

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Well okay then. So, the Times, researching Schweizer’s information and doing their journalistic due diligence by taking it with an entire mine’s worth of salt based on the source’s antipathy towards the Clintons, and all but accusing Hillary Clinton of taking money for State Department favors, wouldn’t print this without solid evidence of payola, right?

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

Oh.  So now the NY Times is working for News Corp marketing, after making a shady deal with Schweizer to print his book’s speculation as news and to advance the author’s agenda without actually being able to corroborate the accusations.  The news story is literally “We think this makes Hillary look bad.”  She should probably resign as Secretary of State or something.

The story behind this deal with Schweizer seems like a story that should be checked out by an actual news outlet, yes?

But it gets better. (or worse?)

You see but this is just part one of Schweizer’s plan for 24/7 irresponsible to not be speculating from all the major news outlets, because his next target is apparently Jebby according to Bloomberg’s Joshua Green.

“What we’re doing is a drill-down investigation of Jeb’s finances similar to what we did with the Clintons in terms of looking at financial dealings, cronyism, who he’s been involved with,” Schweizer told me on Thursday. “We’ve found some interesting things.”

Schweizer says he and a team of researchers have been pouring over Bush’s financial life for about four months. Among other things, they’re scrutinizing various Florida land deals, an airport deal while Bush was governor that involved state funds, and Chinese investors in Bush’s private equity funds (something I wrote about for Bloomberg last year).

As he did with the Clinton book, Schweizer is hoping to partner with media organizations interested in reporting on and advancing his examination of Bush’s finances—an arrangement Schweizer feels has been mischaracterized in the media.  “With the Clinton book, we didn’t just give it to reporters with the expectation that they would report on the book,” he says. “We shared it early on with investigative reporters at ABC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post because we wanted that additional scrutiny [of the book’s subjects]. And we want similar scrutiny for this project.”

It’s a pretty good con, Hillary vs Jeb is booooooooring and we’ve got 18 months of this crap to fill, so let’s make things interesting for both sides, right?

It would be irresponsible not to.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Where Do They Grow These Tone Deaf Assholes?
Next Post: Unspoofable Right »

Reader Interactions

130Comments

  1. 1.

    SP

    April 23, 2015 at 9:32 am

    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,
    That’s some serious weasel shit right there. Several department representatives (Who else? Who cares!) had to sign off and none of them objected either, but clearly because State was one of them and Hillary was in charge of State it was a bribe. The logical gaps would embarrass a fourth grader.

  2. 2.

    germy shoemangler

    April 23, 2015 at 9:40 am

    If the NYTIMES isn’t bad enough, Sharyl Attkisson will now be appearing on all tv stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting.

    They own a news station in my town, and the “journalists” have NOTHING good EVER to say about John Kerry. One time I had it on in the background while reading, and they were discussing some American soldiers who’d been killed, and they claimed “Kerry said it didn’t matter” which made me look up and say whaaat??

    So expect Attkisson’s “reports” to be flooding the tv stations of low info voters all over the U.S.

  3. 3.

    JPL

    April 23, 2015 at 9:43 am

    Earlier I started to read the article and I stopped after this sentence..
    At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. From then on, it was pure speculation.

  4. 4.

    Villago Delenda Est

    April 23, 2015 at 9:54 am

    So, the fucktards of the Grey Lady learned NOTHING from Whitewater.

    High time to kick some “journamalists” to the curb.

  5. 5.

    Betty Cracker

    April 23, 2015 at 9:56 am

    @germy shoemangler: Is that the same Sharyl Attkisson who once cited a stuck delete key as evidence that Obama, Hillary Clinton or their NSA minions had personally hacked her laptop to delete a Benghazi article while she was typing it? Yes, it’s that Sharyl Attkisson.

    Every Democratic presidential candidate gets savaged to some extent by the default-Republican corporate media. But for my money, no one got personally shit on by the mainstream outlets more than Al Gore. This deal with sleaze merchant Schweizer tells me they plan to outdo themselves to take down Hillary Clinton. Oh well. At least she knew what she was getting into…

  6. 6.

    raven

    April 23, 2015 at 10:04 am

    You better watch you ass on this shit or Mika will get you for your “jihad”.

  7. 7.

    benw

    April 23, 2015 at 10:04 am

    Meanwhile, billionaires pour millions of $ *directly* into the Super PACs that are *directly* controlled by candidate’s campaigns, not at-least-one-step-removed charitable foundations, and we hear squat. I need BoBo to help explain this one to me.

  8. 8.

    OzarkHillbilly

    April 23, 2015 at 10:13 am

    @benw: Money flows up. Shit flows down.

  9. 9.

    D58826

    April 23, 2015 at 10:20 am

    ot but here we go again. Two hostages were killed in an attack on an AQ target. I assume that all of the usual parties will start screaming but it’s a war zone. Bad stuff happens. Its tragic but has been happening since the first ape picked up that bone.

    Apparently two Americans fighting for Aq were also killed even though they were not specifically targeted. This will reignite the debate about targeting Americans without trial. I have yet to see in all of these debates what the alternative is. These two guys decided to join AQ. No one forced them to go to Pakistan and make war on the US. To me it is simply the fortunes of war. If you take up arms against the US, citizen or not, you just have to take your chances. What is the alternative – wait till they come back to the US and blowup a shopping mall?.

  10. 10.

    Bobby Thomson

    April 23, 2015 at 10:20 am

    Not the end of her campaign but not a nothing burger, either. The failure to disclose smells very bad.

  11. 11.

    WaterGirl

    April 23, 2015 at 10:21 am

    In happy news, I get to go see Joe Biden speak today!

  12. 12.

    charluckles

    April 23, 2015 at 10:23 am

    Who does this garbage play too? Is there a segment of the population that doesn’t realize that you take the same magnifying glass to nearly any politician, big fish or little, and find some evidence of “corruption”? Does this segment overlap at all with the segment that believes that the Citizen United ruling would not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption?

  13. 13.

    MDC

    April 23, 2015 at 10:26 am

    @Bobby Thomson:

    Agreed. This is not great. It’s unfortunate that the knee-jerk reflex here is to attack the messenger. The Clintons have in fact taken money from a lot of sleazy people.

  14. 14.

    benw

    April 23, 2015 at 10:27 am

    @OzarkHillbilly: Shortest BoBo ever. All it needs is, “and it’s the hippies fault”.

  15. 15.

    Booger

    April 23, 2015 at 10:29 am

    What exactly has Schweitzer and his team of researcher been pouring over BushCo’s financial records? Maple syrup?
    Or did this crack team of hard-hitting journamalists mean ‘poring?’

  16. 16.

    D58826

    April 23, 2015 at 10:29 am

    @MDC: And the Bushes and Romney haven’t?

  17. 17.

    Gene108

    April 23, 2015 at 10:33 am

    @MDC:

    One of the major investors in George w. Bush’s early business failures were members of the bin Laden family.

    It did not receive nearly this much coverage.

    The fact they are attacking the Clintons for the appearance of impropriety, when the entire Republican Presidential field is openly being bought by billionaires is bullshit.

    The messenger needs to be attacked.

    This sort of uneven and partisan reporting is one reason we cannot have nice things.

    Edit: And clearly the Clinton Foundation has done a lot of sleazy things in return for contributions…which is where this speculation is heading …despite the actual good things they do…

  18. 18.

    benw

    April 23, 2015 at 10:34 am

    @Betty Cracker: It’s hard to tell who got it worse, Kerry or Gore. I feel like Gore died from a thousand little cuts and mischaracterizations, e.g. “invented the internet”, that each would have taken any real news outlet about 10 minutes to fact-check, while Kerry got blindsided by one massive lie. In either case the American media failed miserably.

  19. 19.

    Zandar

    April 23, 2015 at 10:36 am

    @Gene108:

    The fact they are attacking the Clintons for the appearance of impropriety, when the entire Republican Presidential field is openly being bought by billionaires is bullshit.

    The messenger needs to be attacked.

    A trillion times this.

    Hillary is far from being my favorite politician, but with the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson and others openly bragging about how they plan to purchase candidates for President, I’m going to come out swinging.

  20. 20.

    feebog

    April 23, 2015 at 10:36 am

    From the article:

    Soon, Uranium One began to snap up mining companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

    2007. Hmm. Who was President in 2007? Some cowboy from Texas if I recall. And the Secretary of State sure as hell was not Hillary Clinton. Uranium One was buying up mines and mining rights in the U.S. well before HRC ever became SoS. The times should be ashamed to be printing this drivel.

  21. 21.

    Snarkworth

    April 23, 2015 at 10:37 am

    @Booger: I know! I’d be royally miffed if someone poured anything over MY financial records.

  22. 22.

    Roger Moore

    April 23, 2015 at 10:38 am

    @benw:

    I need BoBo to help explain this one to me.

    When in doubt, try IOKIYAR as an explanation.

  23. 23.

    Paul in KY

    April 23, 2015 at 10:40 am

    @benw: I thought Gore had it worse. Sen. Kerry could have responded a lot better to that 1 repulsive lie & maybe changed his fate. VP Gore had it coming from everywhere.

  24. 24.

    qwerty42

    April 23, 2015 at 10:41 am

    @Betty Cracker: … But for my money, no one got personally shit on by the mainstream outlets more than Al Gore. …
    Hey! Bush was a great guy you could have a beer with and what about his courageous rescue of the little girl from the burning house (I think we can all thank Peggy Noonan for that one. it was one of her imaginary profiles of an imaginary person). As far as I’m concerned, the national press covered itself in crap in 2000 and was still doing it when it credulously accepted the administrations line on Iraq. It hasn’t recovered yet. Josh Marshall has often ridiculed them, and I’m sure they have no clue why that would happen.

  25. 25.

    Roger Moore

    April 23, 2015 at 10:44 am

    @charluckles:

    Who does this garbage play too? Is there a segment of the population that doesn’t realize that you take the same magnifying glass to nearly any politician, big fish or little, and find some evidence of “corruption”?

    It’s the big lie in action. Knowing that some kind of smear is possible is different from seeing a smear in action. Even people who know that you could do the same thing to any politician will react to seeing it done.

  26. 26.

    Cervantes

    April 23, 2015 at 10:46 am

    @Gene108:

    And clearly the Clinton Foundation has done a lot of sleazy things in return for contributions

    Do you have a list?

  27. 27.

    MDC

    April 23, 2015 at 10:47 am

    @D58826: Yes, the Bushes and Romneys have too, and it’s been investigated and reported on. “Everyone does it” is not a justification.

  28. 28.

    Cervantes

    April 23, 2015 at 10:48 am

    @feebog:

    The times should be ashamed to be printing this drivel.

    When Giuliani and company cleaned up 42nd and 8th, they forgot to do anything about the occupants of the Times building.

  29. 29.

    MomSense

    April 23, 2015 at 10:51 am

    I was just commiserating with a friend yesterday that what I find so frustrating is that it takes a minimum of 20 minutes to explain why ____________________[insert Republican talking point or media story] isn’t accurate or means something different in practice than what it sounds like. For all our faults, we are all trying to read this NYT article critically to find the errors or weasel statements. Most people do not do this which is why it takes so much effort to get our message out.

    This narrative of HRC engaging in handing out favors to contributors scheme at State is what people will remember unless we come up with a more compelling narrative and even then it is really hard to counter because you know the media will play clips on an endless loop of Republican candidates and operatives saying this over and over again. Even if the media offer an opposing view, often what people remember is hearing that baseless charge repeated until it is believed to be fact.

  30. 30.

    p.a.

    April 23, 2015 at 10:52 am

    @Villago Delenda Est: No. No. They learned everything from Whitewater. They learned that ‘consequences’ is now only a theoretical concept for those above a certain social level.

  31. 31.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 10:53 am

    I don’t care about this. I care that the Clinton Foundation “accidentally” filed 5 years of taxes wrong about foreign government donations and have to refile taxes. They’ve known since 2008 that Hillary was going to run for office and they still make all these boneheaded decisions. The Clintons and their need to play in the gray area and then act surprised when caught doing it is exhausting.

    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.

  32. 32.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 10:57 am

    @WaterGirl:

    I’m jealous. Have fun and enjoy the experience.

  33. 33.

    Cervantes

    April 23, 2015 at 11:00 am

    @p.a.:

    ‘consequences’

    Jeff Gerth, who spear-headed their Whitewater coverage, and their Wen-Ho Lee coverage, went on to win a Pulitzer for an unrelated topic.

    Plus he subsequently blamed his editors at the Times for mistakes found in his Whitewater articles.

  34. 34.

    Paul in KY

    April 23, 2015 at 11:02 am

    @WaterGirl: Ask him to jump into the 2016 race!

  35. 35.

    Nutella

    April 23, 2015 at 11:05 am

    Both sides do it!

    They love this stuff. Print it, teach the controversy, pages get filled with words, and nobody has to do any work.

  36. 36.

    Mike in NC

    April 23, 2015 at 11:07 am

    At this point the New York Times is about as reputable as the Washington Times.

  37. 37.

    germy shoemangler

    April 23, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Did HRC learn anything from John Kerry refusing to take the swiftboaters seriously enough to challenge them?

  38. 38.

    Cervantes

    April 23, 2015 at 11:13 am

    @askew:

    The sloppiness is disheartening, I agree.

    Also, the excerpt you provided from Reuters suggests tens of millions of dollars in under-reported government grants but does not mention “more than $100 million” in “over-reported government grants.”

  39. 39.

    catclub

    April 23, 2015 at 11:15 am

    @Bobby Thomson:

    The failure to disclose smells very bad.

    Some rules only matter after the Clintons have broken them. Everyone else has been breaking them for years. SuperPacs
    have great disclosure policies, right?

  40. 40.

    aimai

    April 23, 2015 at 11:17 am

    This is going to be the Tony Rezko line of attack on Obama all over again: they shot their bolt too early. Sure, Askew and other pathologically anti Clinton people are going to throw it into the Benghazi mix, but 18 months from now the voters who are going to vote for HRC won’t give a shit because the alternative is people so much more corrupt and so much more horrifying that its like comparing a gnat bite to having your leg bitten off by a shark. And for the others–the Askews on the supposed left and the right wing tea baggers? What do they care? Nothing can increase their poutrage meter.

  41. 41.

    DK

    April 23, 2015 at 11:18 am

    How much more obvious could it be that the Republicans and Hillary’s rabid haters are getting embarrassingly desperate now that Hillary has risen to a double-digit lead on every Republican in the latest CNN/ORC poll? Benghazi crashed a burned, and so did Emailghazi — and as with all these baseless, desperate, reaching right wing attacks the witch hunt has only made Hillary more popular.

    So having failed miserably with their fake outrage, theyre now attacking an international nonprofit for taking international donations and Bill Clinton’s speaking fees — including attacks on speaking fees he didn’t even accept haha. Meanwhile, Hillary is out talking about issues that actually affect the American people’s lives. And they can’t figure out why she has more credibility with Americans than the media and why she keeps rising in the polls.

    By the time this latest non-scandal is over she should be up by triple digits.

  42. 42.

    Keith G

    April 23, 2015 at 11:20 am

    I have no problem with the idea that the Clinton’s financial arrangements get examined with a very strong magnifying glass. I also assume that once the field gets whittled down, such efforts will be exerted on whoever the one or two Republican front runners are. (Even though we know who the finalists will be I think the field is still too big right now for any one of them to command the same amount of attention that is paid to Hillary Clinton who is the candidate for the Democratic Party.)

    I also think that once this is all said and done there will be some mistakes found in the Clinton financials. And I also think it’s not going to matter particularly if Secretary of State Clinton is able to run a strong campaign. Who she is as a person and what she hopes to do as president when compared to the opposition will be the most important matter. What forensic accountants find out about the Clinton Initiative is going to put a lot of people to sleep no matter how much noise Rush Limbaugh makes of it.

  43. 43.

    benw

    April 23, 2015 at 11:20 am

    @Roger Moore: Between IOKIYAR and punching hippies, you’ve covered 99% of Brooks’ drivel these days. (The other 1% is uncritically repeating conservative economic lies that poor Krugman has to waste his time slapping down).

  44. 44.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 11:21 am

    @Cervantes:

    I extracted the parts that I am worried about. Either the accounting team at CF are morons or their change in reporting 0 in foreign governments to the IRS was intentional. I am more frustrated by the amateur hour crap the Clinton camp has produced already – the dumb e-mail decision, playing fast and loose with tax forms and disclosures, etc. They’ve known since Obama won the primary that Hillary would be running again, they’ve been through this process 3 times already between Bill and Hillary and they still can’t seem to stop making these kind of mistakes. And they still don’t have a good answer besides no comment and it is a distraction.

    As David Corn said on twitter: “@DavidCornDC: I’ve never understood why the Clintons didn’t seem to understand potential problem of hobnobbing w/ foreign interests, Goldman Sachs, etc.”

  45. 45.

    catclub

    April 23, 2015 at 11:21 am

    @aimai: I agree. The Clintons have been regularly attacked for almost 25 years, and they are more popular now than when they started. They are pretty fixed quantities.

  46. 46.

    catclub

    April 23, 2015 at 11:24 am

    @askew:

    the dumb e-mail decision

    Ha, ha. The most recent complete disaster that would CERTAINLY sink her. Is forgotten by everyone but you and me.
    25 years of attacks and they are more popular now. Get used to it.

  47. 47.

    Original Lee

    April 23, 2015 at 11:26 am

    @askew: This. The needless drama that could have been avoided if they had just listened to a competent straight-shooter!

  48. 48.

    Bobby B

    April 23, 2015 at 11:27 am

    For news I go to “Democracy Now!” All the other “sources” are just to feed my hate jones.

  49. 49.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 11:27 am

    @Keith G:

    What these stories about the Clinton Foundation are going to do, whether true in the case of filing incorrect tax returns or BS like the NYT story, is to reinforce the negative opinion many voters have of Hillary’s trustworthiness (she is already underwater in polls on this issue) and turn the CF from an asset to a negative for Hillary.

    There is no comparison to Obama and the Rezko story because the Obamas are squeaky clean and that was literally the only questionable issue they could find on them. The Clintons have scores of questionable issues regarding money and influence. Yes, the MSM has ginned up scandals on the Clintons but they aren’t helping themselves by constantly playing so fast and loose ethically.

  50. 50.

    gene108

    April 23, 2015 at 11:28 am

    @Cervantes:

    I do not think they have done anything sleazy, but I think the chain of thought that is being formed – by both right-wingers and liberals, who hate the Clintons, and are willing to believe the worst rumors about them – with regards to the Clinton Foundation is:

    1. Clintons get money from “undisclosed”, “sleazy”, etc. foreign donors.
    2. SoS Clinton and/or former President Bill Clinton do favors for these donors
    3.The Clinton foundation is a quasi-criminal enterprise, slush fund and/or tax dodge for the Clintons to enrich themselves and sell favors.

    This is laying the groundwork for 2016, when and if Hillary is the nominee and Bill’s tooling around being charismatic and connecting with folks struggling to make a living, because he came from a lower middle-class background himself, the Republicans will say, “yeah, but look at all the criminal things he’s done while out of office with his Foundation,” and everyone on the Right will believe it along with many on the Left.

    Get the media to pick up on the “criminal” Clinton Foundation and you have a way to push low-info and undecided voters towards Republicans.

  51. 51.

    Belafon

    April 23, 2015 at 11:31 am

    @askew:

    As David Corn said on twitter: “@DavidCornDC: I’ve never understood why the Clintons didn’t seem to understand potential problem of hobnobbing w/ foreign interests, Goldman Sachs, etc.”

    Because those rules only seem to apply to Democrats. When are Republicans going to get punished for bowing down to Wall Street, the Kochs, Sheldon Anderson, being willing to take money and not disclose where it’s coming from, etc?

  52. 52.

    Gin & Tonic

    April 23, 2015 at 11:32 am

    @catclub: The forensic accountants in the press certainly had a field day with Mitt Romney’s years and years of tax returns, didn’t they? Oh, wait…

    I’m sure the $100 million that Bill and Hill have stashed in the Caymans will become an issue, too. Oh, wait…

  53. 53.

    Brachiator

    April 23, 2015 at 11:34 am

    @Bobby Thomson:

    Not the end of her campaign but not a nothing burger, either. The failure to disclose smells very bad.

    Sorry, there is not much of a story here. For example, another poster noted that a number of agencies had to sign off on the deal. But the sleazeballs who planted this story want people to see a direct “money for favors” deal done solely by the Clintons or even just Hillary alone.

    This nonsense also waffles on the fact that during this period Putin and the Russians went from being our best buds ever to “Cold War 2: The Commie Force Awakens.”

    And, as always, there is the attempt to slime Hillary Clinton and the Democrats as just not caring about Real America’s Real Interests.

    I’m just waiting for some Tea Party Asshat to demand a Congressional Investigation.

  54. 54.

    gene108

    April 23, 2015 at 11:35 am

    @MDC:

    Yes, the Bushes and Romneys have too, and it’s been investigated and reported on. “Everyone does it” is not a justification.

    But when the messenger, the New York Times, focuses on one person rather than “everyone [who] does it”, the messenger needs to be taken to task for cherry picking facts about an issue.

    From the “everybody does it” file, I think the Clintons getting donations to their foundation – which has done some very good work around the world – is a helluva a lot different than billionaires throwing undisclosed millions into Super PACs to buy Republican candidates or whatever favors Romney and Bush, Jr. got because their fathers were/are bigshots.

    Just compare and contrast: Clintons get money to Foundation that does charity work around the world, whereas Republicans get money and favors to personally enrich themselves and their closest friends.

    It really ain’t the same, when you look at what the output for the monetary input is.

  55. 55.

    Beeb

    April 23, 2015 at 11:37 am

    According to someone (Howard Dean?) on Morning Joe (ptui), Schweitzer is being bankrolled by Ted Cruz’s billionaire(s). So going after Bush too doesn’t mean Schweitzer is somehow bipartisan. It means he’s a hired gun who has been aimed at Cruz’s opponents.

  56. 56.

    UncomfortableTruth

    April 23, 2015 at 11:37 am

    Interesting how we all just ignore that Dave Sirota has been writing about her pay to play scandal for some months, and has her essentially caught red handed on the Colombia free trade deal, and the software deals with China.

    But Sirota since Sirota can’t be dismissed, we just ignore him and pretend only the right wing goons care about this stuff.

    Screw the facts though right? By all means keep inoculating your readers even before the primaries! Dissent must be stamped out!!

  57. 57.

    sparrow

    April 23, 2015 at 11:38 am

    @Betty Cracker: I have to say I’ve never been a huge Hillary fan (don’t think she’s a great politician, disagree on some issues), but the more the estabishment attacks her, the more I am like, YOU GO GIRL, RIP THEIR THROATS OUT AND FUCKING DESTROY THEM ALL.

    Seriously, if this continues I may end up going door to door for Hillary after all (never thought I’d say that).

  58. 58.

    Mike E

    April 23, 2015 at 11:39 am

    A call I’ve been working on actually worked: an attempt to repeal our state’s renewable energy plan (a modest 12.5%) failed in committee, twice, due to constituent calls I helped to generate…small victory, but I’ll take it :-)

  59. 59.

    rikyrah

    April 23, 2015 at 11:39 am

    The Clinton Foundation is nothing but messy

  60. 60.

    SiubhanDuinne

    April 23, 2015 at 11:46 am

    @WaterGirl:

    What fun! What’s the event?

  61. 61.

    Elizabelle

    April 23, 2015 at 11:49 am

    @sparrow: I’m hoping that’s the dynamic that will set in.

    The Kochs and Schweitzer are not subtle.

  62. 62.

    Violet

    April 23, 2015 at 11:49 am

    @sparrow:

    I have to say I’ve never been a huge Hillary fan (don’t think she’s a great politician, disagree on some issues), but the more the estabishment attacks her, the more I am like, YOU GO GIRL, RIP THEIR THROATS OUT AND FUCKING DESTROY THEM ALL.

    Yeah, me too. I think John Cole said something like that on a front page post recently as well. Talk about an unlikely person to feel that way.

    Just wait until the misogynist attacks start. Women who never thought they’d support Hillary will be staunch supporters.

  63. 63.

    D58826

    April 23, 2015 at 11:50 am

    @gene108: If everyone who has done it were disqualified then I suspect the only candidates left would be porky pig and pluto the dog

  64. 64.

    the Conster

    April 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    @askew:

    I am so in agreement. Exhausting is the exact right word. On the upside, maybe O’Malley is getting some traction – a friend who’s largely non-political sent me an email link to O’Malley’s speech on NPR talking about balance instead of pitchforks. Maybe someone else will get off the sidelines because of all this shit and provide an alternative.

  65. 65.

    CONGRATULATIONS!

    April 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    You guys need to figure some shit out here, here’s some hints:

    We have a two party system.
    Hillary will be the Dem nominee.
    Some Republican asshole will be their nominee.

    You can either help tear down the only person standing between you and an all-three branch Republican government, or you can do nothing until November of 2016 (or even, God forbid, help out) and then vote for the only choice you’re going to get. Probably Jeb, or Hillary.

    Any other option you’re considering assumes a form of government that does not exist in this nation.

  66. 66.

    Keith G

    April 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    @askew: You are right. There are negative opinions of the Clintons that will be reinforced. I do not think that this is going to matter a whole hell of a lot because the division of the American politics is severe and mostly already locked in. The competition is for a small slice of voters who are are much more amenable to Hillary Clinton then they are to Jeb or Scott or Marco.

    Even if the Clintons are further bruised a bit by some disclosures you seem to be salivating at, it’s not going to be a big issue except for the regular cast of conservative mouthpieces and newspaper reporters who sprout wood hoping to get a byline on an article about a scandal.

  67. 67.

    Peale

    April 23, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    @Belafon: Yep. Let’s just consider that this “coming together of captains of industry and politicians” along with “thought leaders” represents a kind of thinking that the press falls over itself to take part in each winter at Davos. The Clinton foundation taps into that vibe. You can think of it as you wish, but for the press to be shocked that wealthy around the world hob-nob over a charity is kind of precious.

  68. 68.

    Violet

    April 23, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    @CONGRATULATIONS!: Hillary will likely be the nominee but things happen. Accidents, illnesses, scandals too big to ignore. Whatever. Someone else needs to be running in case for some reason Hillary can’t run. Someone else also needs to be running so Hillary has some primary opponents. She needs debate practice or she’ll be rusty when it comes time for the debates against the Republican.

    Democrats also don’t want a coronation. People want ideas discussed. That’s only fair and is the right thing to do. I hope other candidates in addition to O’Malley jump in. Bring on the Biden.

  69. 69.

    Violet

    April 23, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    @Keith G:

    The competition is for a small slice of voters who are are much more amenable to Hillary Clinton then they are to Jeb or Scott or Marco.

    I think the competition really is which party can GOTV better.

  70. 70.

    Brachiator

    April 23, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    @catclub:

    I agree. The Clintons have been regularly attacked for almost 25 years, and they are more popular now than when they started. They are pretty fixed quantities.

    Yep. These weak ass smears always make me think of one of Darrell Hammond’s best Clinton impersonations (could not find the video clip, but here’s the transcript):

    [ Open on still of “NBC Special Report” ]

    Male V/O: And now, an NBC Special Report with Tom Brokaw.

    [ Fade to Tom Brokaw, in front of a title backdrop that reads “The President on Trial” ]

    Tom Brokaw: On Friday, after months of impeachment turmoil, William Jefferson Clinton was acquitted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Shortly after the Senate took the final votes on the articles of impeachment, President Clinton held a press conference in the White House rose garden. Let’s take a look at this historically moving address.

    [ Fade to Clinton walking up to the podium. He gives thumbs-up as he declares … ]

    Bill Clinton: I … am … bulletproof. [ walks off the podium, then walks back to say one more thing ]

    Next time, you best bring Kryptonite! [ gives thumbs-up and walks off ]

  71. 71.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    @the Conster:

    While it will continue to be a longshot, O’Malley has been positioning himself well as a contrast to Hillary. And it sounds like he is going to jump in to the race in May. I’ll be curious to see if he can gain any traction by the fall in early states. I expect him to remain a blip in national polls until January 2016 when everyone else starts paying attention.

  72. 72.

    Gin & Tonic

    April 23, 2015 at 12:13 pm

    @CONGRATULATIONS!: Indeed.

    Here’s another view. The only Obama 2012 states where his margin of victory was less than 5% were VA, OH and FL. Give the R’s all of those plus all of the Romney states and HRC wins by 272 to 266.

  73. 73.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    @SP:

    Assuming that the “committee” involved is CFIUS, here is the list of agencies.

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/foreign-investment/Pages/cfius-members.aspx

  74. 74.

    Betty Cracker

    April 23, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    @MDC:

    The Clintons have in fact taken money from a lot of sleazy people.

    So did my mother, God rest her soul. For more than 30 years, she was on the payroll of an operating company associated with an openly misogynist parent organization that functioned as a child rapist protection racket and used loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

    Put another way, my mom was a nurse at a hospital run by the Catholic church. My point? Sometimes guilt by association is bullshit.

  75. 75.

    Tree With Water

    April 23, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    I believe Hillary unfit for the presidency. But I stand prepared to cancel my NY Times subscription (take that!) if/when they start this Whitewater bullshit all over again. Which is why I say that in terms of rallying the base around her, Hillary Clinton must thank her lucky stars every night for the caliber of her enemies.

    I wonder if the Times realizes how stupid the paper looks? I mean, I’m sure the journalists do. And I don’t mean the paper’s newly professed (and hilarious) Claude Rains-like naivety about money and politics. No, I mean do the people at the Times who made the decision to throw in with a political hatchet man think people wouldn’t notice? Or care? I wouldn’t be surprised at this point if the same people rehired Judith Miller.

  76. 76.

    Brachiator

    April 23, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    @CONGRATULATIONS!:

    We have a two party system.
    Hillary will be the Dem nominee.
    Some Republican asshole will be their nominee.

    Hillary may be the nominee. Pretty likely. But not Inevitable. And after the enthusiasm that voters had for Obama, Hillary still has to give people a reason to vote for her, and a sense that she is the right person to vote for.

    All the cheerleading and false insistence of loyalty is premature. And even the somewhat logical assertion that any sensible person must vote the Democrat resonates more with true believers than anyone else.

  77. 77.

    Just One More Canuck

    April 23, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    @D58826: I was at Disney World recently and met Pluto. Since I am a foreigner (Canadian) that makes Pluto highly suspect

  78. 78.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    @Just One More Canuck:

    Pluto was ALWAYS highly suspect.

  79. 79.

    Violet

    April 23, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Beautiful. Love that.

  80. 80.

    mai naem mobile

    April 23, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    Don’t forget we’ll also get the “Hillary is a cunning scheming politician who’s been planning on running for POTUS since 1996” but “oooh, looky here, she’s so stupid that she had furrin governments and furriners who donated to her husbands charity -hahaha didn’t she see the conflict of interest”
    Bonus points for Dem ex presidents and president wanna bes should not have mad money or intend to make any money, they have to live in poverty.

  81. 81.

    Mandalay

    April 23, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    @CONGRATULATIONS!:

    You guys need to figure some shit out here, here’s some hints:

    I think “You people” is the preferred term when you want to be a condescending asshole.

  82. 82.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    OT, but can i get a chorus of “Fuck you, Mitch McConnell” from the congregation?

    http://justsecurity.org/22348/senator-mcconnells-modest-proposal-reform-section-215-dont/

  83. 83.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    @Mandalay:

    Anybody who hasn’t figured that shit out is worthy of condescension.

  84. 84.

    Just One More Canuck

    April 23, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    @burnspbesq: Yes, but Goofy is the one I would out for

  85. 85.

    Zandar

    April 23, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    Anybody who hasn’t figured that shit out is worthy of condescension.

    Like the two-thirds of American voters who stayed home last November and gave the Senate and states like Maryland and Illinois to Republican governors.

    You know.

    Morons.

  86. 86.

    Brachiator

    April 23, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    @Tree With Water:

    I believe Hillary unfit for the presidency.

    What?

    To quote Vincent, from “Pulp Fiction,” That’s a bold statement.

    I have a few reservations with respect to Hillary. But unfit? No.

  87. 87.

    Xenos

    April 23, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    @Betty Cracker: There is no way the Clinton Foundation has taken as much dirty money as Mother Theresa.

  88. 88.

    Calouste

    April 23, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    @Keith G:

    I also assume that once the field gets whittled down, such efforts will be exerted on whoever the one or two Republican front runners are.

    You’re funny. Or terribly naïve. Can’t tell really.

  89. 89.

    JustRuss

    April 23, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    @askew:

    Those governments were identified on the foundation’s annually updated donor list,

    Assuming that’s true, Clinton is either the most incompetent villain ever, or some bonehead at the Foundation screwed up. Yes, it’s sloppy, and it’s inexcusable that she doesn’t have someone doublechecking to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen, but I can’t see how anyone can construe this as HRC trying to pull a fast one when the damning evidence was published in plain sight in the CF’s donor list.

    And that’s what put me off of HRC last time around: She didn’t seem to be able to put together a competent, disciplined team. I’ll still vote for here, since our other option will be incompetent and evil, but it’s hard to get enthused.

  90. 90.

    Calouste

    April 23, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    The Guardian has a long article about Sheldon Adelson’s operations in Macau, which I can’t link to because it has a word in the title that FYWP doesn’t like.

  91. 91.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 12:46 pm

    @JustRuss:

    Assuming that’s true, Clinton is either the most incompetent villain ever, or some bonehead at the Foundation screwed up. Yes, it’s sloppy, and it’s inexcusable that she doesn’t have someone doublechecking to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen, but I can’t see how anyone can construe this as HRC trying to pull a fast one when the damning evidence was published in plain sight in the CF’s donor list.

    And that’s what put me off of HRC last time around: She didn’t seem to be able to put together a competent, disciplined team. I’ll still vote for here, since our other option will be incompetent and evil, but it’s hard to get enthused.

    At this point you have to wonder if the problem is with HRC herself. The number of boneheaded mistakes that have already impacted her run. That was the one thing I expected to be fixed in this campaign. But, she’s turned over most of her staff and still the same fucking dumb mistakes. How did no one notice that the # of reported donations from foreign governments all of a sudden dropped to zero?

  92. 92.

    Paul in KY

    April 23, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    @Gin & Tonic: It is critical that we take Ohio in 16. No Republican has EVER been elected president, without winning Ohio.

  93. 93.

    Paul in KY

    April 23, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Man, that’s a great analogy!

  94. 94.

    Xenos

    April 23, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    @Calouste: Embedding that link for you re Adelson’s sleazy fortune.

  95. 95.

    Paul in KY

    April 23, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    @burnspbesq: Fuck you, Mitch. His ploy will probably work, though. The scumwad!

  96. 96.

    Xenos

    April 23, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    @Calouste: I tried embedding the link, and had the same problem.

    Try this link.

  97. 97.

    Mandalay

    April 23, 2015 at 12:56 pm

    @JustRuss:

    some bonehead at the Foundation screwed up.

    I find that very plausible. Just two months ago. Some decisions made by the foundation seem boneheaded rather than evil. For example, just two months ago….

    The Clinton Foundation defended lifting its self-imposed ban on accepting foreign government donations on Wednesday, coming under scrutiny as Hillary Clinton is expected to run for president in the coming months.

    What on earth were they thinking? And then, just last week…

    The Clinton Foundation — facing mounting criticism for accepting foreign funding and struggling to raise money for a planned June conference in Greece — has agreed to limit, but not eliminate, donations from foreign governments.

    People who are good at running foundations, and understand politics, and understand media scrutiny, are probably very thin on the ground. One would think Bill Clinton would fit the bill, but apparently not.

  98. 98.

    catclub

    April 23, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    @Calouste: Yeah, the press really tore up Romney for only opening one year of tax returns.
    Forensic accountants were more valuable than rubies, all hired by the press to track every penny.

  99. 99.

    catclub

    April 23, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    @Gin & Tonic: Given that count, the only election news of interest is: Can a GOP rep turn even more states than OH, VA and FL? And that is FAR too specific a question to keep up interest for the nest 18 months.

  100. 100.

    Tree With Water

    April 23, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    @Brachiator: Unfit? Yes.

  101. 101.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    @Xenos:

    Next Tuesday, when Adelson is scheduled to testify in the wrongful-termination suit filed by a former Sands senior exec, should be really interesting. And IIRC, there is an ongoing Federal grand jury investigation into possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by Sands.

    Adelson is so dirty that “dirty” doesn’t seem adequate to describe him.

  102. 102.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    @Tree With Water:

    Bill of particulars, please.

  103. 103.

    Xenos

    April 23, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    @burnspbesq: Maybe a parade of horribles will do.

    Still waiting, in any case. I am surprised someone has not been generating a list of scary-sounding stuff.

  104. 104.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    @Xenos:

    Google “sands macau fcpa.” It’s a gold mine. For openers, in Sands’ 2012 10-K it apparently disclosed that the audit committee of the board had determined that the company “probably” violated the FCPA.

  105. 105.

    CONGRATULATIONS!

    April 23, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    I think “You people” is the preferred term when you want to be a condescending asshole.

    @Mandalay: I thought it was obvious enough that I didn’t need a cue.

  106. 106.

    boatboy_srq

    April 23, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    The saddest part of the NYT coverage is that it’s likely the most thoughtful, best researched and least biased coverage Schweizer’s book is likely to get.

  107. 107.

    Peale

    April 23, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    @Mandalay: Does the Clinton Foundation do anything? I’ve heard that they actual do…in that case, we probably would be just as likely to be complaining about how the “cold hearted Clintons” stopped helping the poors just so she could run for President and how calculated and selfish those moves were. It’s all about her dontchyaknow.

  108. 108.

    Brachiator

    April 23, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    @Tree With Water:

    Unfit? Yes.

    You’ve written this twice. Mere repetition is not the same thing as elaborating on your opinion.

  109. 109.

    JoyfulA

    April 23, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    Congratulations, Zandar, on yet another link from Atrios.

  110. 110.

    UncomfortableTruth

    April 23, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    Interesting how we all just ignore that Dave Sirota has been writing about her pay to play scandal for some months, and has her essentially caught red handed on the Colombia free trade deal, and the software deals with China.

    But Sirota since Sirota can’t be dismissed, we just ignore him and pretend only the right wing goons care about this stuff.

    Screw the facts though right? By all means keep inoculating your readers even before the primaries! Dissent must be stamped out!!

  111. 111.

    Tree With Water

    April 23, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    @Brachiator: Well, first of all, Brach, I write what I damn well please. Secondly, and as those acquainted here are too well aware, I believe Hillary unfit for the presidency (that’s #3rd reference, since your keeping score). And if my saying so irks you, all the better- you deserve to be irked.

  112. 112.

    Brachiator

    April 23, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    @Tree With Water:

    I write what I damn well please

    This is more or less a blog about opinions, so it is a bit strange that you are unable or unwilling to express a coherent one (maybe not). This is not irksome at all. It is, rather, pointless.

    I look forward to your next squeak of “Hillary is unfit for the presidency.” Do you have a schedule for this, or are your eruptions spontaneous?

  113. 113.

    EconWatcher

    April 23, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    I’m not sure how all this will shake out, but it’s not a nothingburger (as Benghazi obviously was from day one). Bill was getting huge donations to his foundations and speaking fees for himself and his family from people who had a strong financial interest in State Department decisions, while his wife was SOS. This is a big conflict of interest, and it does not look like it was well managed,
    And guys, I gotta say, some of the dismissive comments above are really silly:
    1. If your approval is required, and you act while having a conflict of interest, it’s not a defense that other approvals were also required. You shouldn’t have to think too hard to see why this is so.
    2. If you make a decision while having a conflict of interest, you can’t defend by saying “you have no proof my decision was actually motivated by personal gain.” The whole point of conflict of interest rules is that we can’t know, but you shouldn’t be the one making the decision if you have a conflict.
    3. These allegations might have been surfaced by a rightwing nutjob, but that does nothing whatsoever to disprove them.

    Chait has a good take. And no, the fact that he favors charter schools and agrees with his wife on some things doesn’t negate his analysis either. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/disastrous-clinton-post-presidency.html

  114. 114.

    Neo

    April 23, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    … but hey, just because the Clintons forgot to mention this $2.35 million is no reason to believe that there is corruption afoot … it can all be easily explained as Alzheimer’s disease.

    I guess those discussions into the 25th Amendment will begin sooner than we all thought.

  115. 115.

    Bobby Thomson

    April 23, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    @Brachiator: the failure to disclose looks very bad, and nothing you said to change the subject changes that. We also don’t know which agency took the lead on this.

  116. 116.

    Bobby Thomson

    April 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    @EconWatcher: apart from your cite to eventheliberal Chait, who may be ignored, I agree with all of that.

  117. 117.

    Bobby Thomson

    April 23, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    @UncomfortableTruth: actually, Sirota can be and is dismissed pretty regularly.

  118. 118.

    EconWatcher

    April 23, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    @Bobby Thomson:

    I don’t agree with some of Chait’s stuff, and he got a little weird with his riff on political correctness, which I thought started with some legitmate points and then just turned,,, odd. But Chait has done the best takedowns of Republican budgets that you can find anywhere, and has exposed Paul Ryan’s various frauds better than anyone. There is a reason why K-thug references Chait often.

    I think a fair-minded liberal who reads Chait’s stuff regularly should recognize him as a useful citizen. Just skip his education stuff if you have to.

  119. 119.

    Brachiator

    April 23, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    @Bobby Thomson:

    the failure to disclose looks very bad, and nothing you said to change the subject changes that. We also don’t know which agency took the lead on this.

    Please don’t try to read my mind or guess at my motivations. I was not looking to change the subject.

    If some official agency wants to look into what has been reported here, and finds something significant, so be it. But I don’t get too excited about “what looks bad,” especially if one of the primary sources is a political operative looking for mud to fling.

    The Chait piece is interesting, but what are we supposed to do with stuff like this:

    But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

    Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

    Is this sloppiness criminal or actionable in any way? How “greedy” is “greedy” and what does it have to do with Hillary’s presidential ambitions?

  120. 120.

    UncomfortableTruth

    April 23, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Clearly $500,000.00 for a speech to the spouse of a current official is not a bribe at all. These profit seeking entities composed of oligarchs and racketeers clearly just are genuinely interested in hearing Clinton give the same speech you can hear 500 different ways on youtube. Clearly.

    Mcdonnell is in jail for much less.

  121. 121.

    EconWatcher

    April 23, 2015 at 6:17 pm

    @UncomfortableTruth: @UncomfortableTruth:

    yes

  122. 122.

    EconWatcher

    April 23, 2015 at 6:37 pm

    @UncomfortableTruth: @UncomfortableTruth:

    By themselves, the huge speaking fees don’t prove anything, They could be hiring Bill to speak for the same reason they hire Elton John to play at their birthday parties: for the prestige and snob appeal, just another example of conspicuous consumption.

    The problem is on the other end, if Hillary did not recuse herself from decisions involving the interests of those who paid her husband the speaking fees or made big foundation donations. If that’s the case, she has a big, big problem–a potentially indictable problem–and I hope it all surfaces fast so there will be enough time for another nominee to build his or her case.

    The NYT is doing its job, and may be doing Dems a favor getting this out now instead of mid 2016. The people bashing NYT on this one sound like our own version of wingnuts to me.

  123. 123.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    @EconWatcher:

    That is a damning article. Most troubling part for me:

    The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

    I’d love to see Hillary answer why she didn’t comply with Obama administration requests since she worked for them. But, I doubt any reporter would ask that question and she doesn’t seem to be giving interviews right now.

  124. 124.

    burnspbesq

    April 23, 2015 at 7:03 pm

    @EconWatcher:

    if Hillary did not recuse herself from decisions involving the interests of those who paid her husband the speaking fees or made big foundation donations. If that’s the case, she has a big, big problem

    Can you name a single documented example of this, or are you just making shit up?

  125. 125.

    UncomfortableTruth

    April 23, 2015 at 7:13 pm

    @burnspbesq:

    The Colombian oil case Sirota has written about.

  126. 126.

    UncomfortableTruth

    April 23, 2015 at 7:14 pm

    @askew:

    Between this and the emails, at what point does her break with the administration become a liability for her in the primaries?

    I suppose if Biden runs it’ll be a thing.

  127. 127.

    UncomfortableTruth

    April 23, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    @EconWatcher:

    That’s the weird part about this. I kinda get the idea of closing ranks in the general election. But we’re not even close to the primaries yet! We need to deal with this seriously now rather than later.

  128. 128.

    askew

    April 23, 2015 at 8:28 pm

    @UncomfortableTruth:

    I think as long as Hillary backs Obama on the big things throughout the primary process (TPP, Iran) the admin won’t publicly distance themselves from her.

  129. 129.

    JWR

    April 24, 2015 at 4:04 am

    Very late to the thread, but on yesterday’s Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman actually cited the work of Schweizer in reporting on this Clinton Foundation brou-ha-ha. I thought, WTF, Amy?

    But back to the point, the NYT reporters stated on the PBS News Hour that this story actually came up in 2008, and that Schweizer was just following up on their reporting. So essentially, Schweizer was cherry picking the story to write this “Clinton Cash” tome.

    (Just adding that I’m probably the least enthusiastic supporter of another Clinton presidency you’re ever likely to meet.)

  130. 130.

    Procopius

    April 24, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    @D58826: Well, let’s see. “Nobody made them go to Pakistan to wage war on the U.S.” You don’t see anything odd about that statement? Like, maybe, the U.S. is not supposed to be waging war in Pakistan? So it wasn’t actually a “war zone.” Anonymous White House officials are calling it an al Qaeda “base,” but what is that really? A house or barn where they say they’ve seen evidence of “extremists” entering and exiting. So, basically, that could be any place in the world because they call any male 14 years old or older an “extremist combatant.” Actually, one of them had been indicted for treason, which I thought was interesting. They never gave al-Awlaki the honor of actually charging him with any crime, so he never could have evaded his end by “turning himself in.”

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/10.25)

Recent Comments

  • Jay on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 6:36pm)
  • Jackie on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 6:34pm)
  • catclub on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 6:34pm)
  • Baud on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 6:33pm)
  • catclub on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 6:33pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!