More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered

[henster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

I think this will be a big issue in the campaign.

[Gallium]

"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown".

Oh.

[Tender Branson]

The puppeteers of international capitalism are already lining up and once their Jeannie makes it into the White House, she's already eager to fulfil all their wishes ...



Be careful what you wish for, Americans (and who you elect). Hillary is only interested in 2 things:

* $$$
* power

Vote Green !

[King]

Yes, everyone, don't fall prey to international puppeteers and vote for who the Austrian guy tells you.

[whanztastic]

So... no connection what so ever was made between the decision and the donations? Were they bribing Obama, DoD as well?

[Gallium]

So... no connection what so ever was made between the decision and the donations? Were they bribing Obama, DoD as well?

They would have had to have bribed eight other governmental departments including the Treasury, Defense and Energy, as well as independent agencies in Utah and Canada:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/

It's bogus. But who cares? It "feeds the narrative"~ about the Clintons.

[Ebsy]

Well, that should be embarrassing, but I wouldn't expect those afflicted with Hillary Derangement Syndrome to have any shame at their pathetic and paranoid ramblings.

[Landslide Lyndon]

LOL!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/hillary-clintons-dismissal-of-clinton-cash-is-dead-206040.html

The fact that Schweizer's revelations have now been vetted and reported out by the likes of the Times, POLITICO, etc., means the Clinton campaign can no longer be so dismissive. And while Chait's column is probably not the definitive nail in that coffin -- "I think the stories themselves achieved that" -- it is certainly an added blow, if only because it is so damning in its assessment of what he dubs the "disastrous Clinton post-presidency."

[Ebsy]

LOL!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/hillary-clintons-dismissal-of-clinton-cash-is-dead-206040.html

The fact that Schweizer's revelations have now been vetted and reported out by the likes of the Times, POLITICO, etc., means the Clinton campaign can no longer be so dismissive. And while Chait's column is probably not the definitive nail in that coffin -- "I think the stories themselves achieved that" -- it is certainly an added blow, if only because it is so damning in its assessment of what he dubs the "disastrous Clinton post-presidency."

This opinion piece is the most blatant case of circular reasoning I have ever seen.

[Gallium]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

[Landslide Lyndon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

I think they hardly try to hide their intentions by now. The next step is sponsoring push polls that ask people if they know that Hillary's hobby is torturing kittens.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

I think they hardly try to hide their intentions by now. The next step is sponsoring push polls that ask people if they know that Hillary's hobby is torturing kittens.

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

[Likely Voter]

I doubt they will ever find a quid pro quo, but there can be no doubt that big donors to Clinton Foundation had the ear of the SecState Clinton. It just feeds the narrative that she is an old school pol.

[Ebsy]

I doubt they will ever find a quid pro quo, but there can be no doubt that big donors to Clinton Foundation had the ear of the SecState Clinton. It just feeds the narrative that she is an old school pol.

This is pretty lazy thinking.

I wonder when the media is going to report an all the good things done with the money the Clinton Foundation raised. I guess I won't hold by breath.

[Likely Voter]

I doubt they will ever find a quid pro quo, but there can be no doubt that big donors to Clinton Foundation had the ear of the SecState Clinton. It just feeds the narrative that she is an old school pol.

This is pretty lazy thinking.

I wonder when the media is going to report an all the good things done with the money the Clinton Foundation raised. I guess I won't hold by breath.

I agree that Clinton Foundation donations isn't the same thing as old fashioned pay for play corruption. My point is that these stories play into the Clinton narrative and reinforce it.

[136or142]

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

If they keep it up, HRC will obviously run against the media as a number of Republican Presidential candidates have previously done with some success.

[Lincoln Republican]

All part of the Clinton pattern of graft, corruption, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, while at the same time having a belief that they are above the law.

This is simply the tip of the iceberg.

[Ebsy]

All part of the Clinton pattern of graft, corruption, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, while at the same time having a belief that they are above the law.

This is simply the tip of the iceberg.

Yawn.

[Bull Moose Base]

As I've said all along, this stuff is a nuisance and she isn't the Democrats' strongest potential nominee but she'll win anyway.

[bobloblaw]

I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

[King]

I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

The Republicans muckrake against any Democratic candidate. Hillary has these scandals but if Warren the Fake Cherokee or Biden the Plagiarist Groper or anyone else were the nominee, these same books would still get written with conspiracy theories surrounding everyone they've ever met. To think that simply subbing out Hillary will make it go away is rubbish.

Boring old John Kerry probably had the cleanest nose of any Democratic nominee of the past the century and he was completely trashed as a fake war hero and liar.

The conservative talk radio/Breitbart/Drudge circuits are skilled at smearing anyone. It's an effective way to rally the far right base at a grassroots level. The media--conservative, liberal, and neutral--love the idea of scandals because its good for ratings, so they tend to buy in on accusations.

The question Democrats have to ask if they want to succeed is not "who can we get that won't get tarnished in scandal?" but "who can we get that will be able to defend themselves against the attempts to tarnish them with scandal?" The best answer is Clinton.

Otherwise, you end up with John Kerry and George McGovern getting punched in the face repeatedly without much resistance.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

Concern troll is concern trolling.

[IceSpear]

I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

The Republicans muckrake against any Democratic candidate. Hillary has these scandals but if Warren the Fake Cherokee or Biden the Plagiarist Groper or anyone else were the nominee, these same books would still get written with conspiracy theories surrounding everyone they've ever met. To think that simply subbing out Hillary will make it go away is rubbish.

Boring old John Kerry probably had the cleanest nose of any Democratic nominee of the past the century and he was completely trashed as a fake war hero and liar.

Indeed. It's funny some people think trying to appease the Republicans by nominating someone completely inoffensive would work. Gore and Kerry were the personification of this strategy, yet the GOP base saw them as far left Satan incarnate by the time the campaign was over.

[Bull Moose Base]

I dont understand why partisan Dems dont see the disaster that Hillary will be for their party. She might win, might have moderate coattails, but the long term damage she does to the party will be enormous. Can the Dem party in 2018 stand another 2014 or 2010 rout?

Thanks to 2010 and 2014, there is essentially no Dem bench in many states, OH and FL among them. How far down does the Dem party want to fall so that Hillary can be president?

The Republicans muckrake against any Democratic candidate. Hillary has these scandals but if Warren the Fake Cherokee or Biden the Plagiarist Groper or anyone else were the nominee, these same books would still get written with conspiracy theories surrounding everyone they've ever met. To think that simply subbing out Hillary will make it go away is rubbish.

Boring old John Kerry probably had the cleanest nose of any Democratic nominee of the past the century and he was completely trashed as a fake war hero and liar.

The conservative talk radio/Breitbart/Drudge circuits are skilled at smearing anyone. It's an effective way to rally the far right base at a grassroots level. The media--conservative, liberal, and neutral--love the idea of scandals because its good for ratings, so they tend to buy in on accusations.

The question Democrats have to ask if they want to succeed is not "who can we get that won't get tarnished in scandal?" but "who can we get that will be able to defend themselves against the attempts to tarnish them with scandal?" The best answer is Clinton.

Otherwise, you end up with John Kerry and George McGovern getting punched in the face repeatedly without much resistance.

This isn't really a made-up scandal like the swiftboat nonsense. As Jonathan Chait says in his column, even the good version of this is bad, but she'll probably get lucky when the GOP overplays it. In any case, yes, the Democrats would be better with a nominee who has fewer real problems. And there's no reason to think Warren or Klobuchar wouldn't fight back just as hard as they faced less credible accusations. But it won't change anything. Most Democrats aren't supporting Hillary because of her general election strength but because they like her. (In general, it's very doubtful most primary voters weight electability heavily in deciding how to cast their vote.) In any case, neither of those other two are running, and Klobuchar endorsed Hillary before she even got in.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that nearly all of Chait's column has been debunked.