"Really, Seriously, A Criminal Investigation?"
"...there's no email evidence at all!"
Posted on 04/27/2015 1:07:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
How do you know that a Democrat has found him or herself embroiled in a particularly devastating scandal? When the press begins to ask when the Republicans will begin “overplaying” their hands.
This weekend, you could feel the ground beginning to fall out from beneath Hillary Clinton’s supporters as members of the reporting and commentary classes began to express their doubts about the former secretary of state’s ethics.
Among some prominent members of the media who are generally not predisposed to dismiss the Democratic candidate in a presidential race, the Clinton Foundation’s shady fundraising practices and the former secretary’s lackadaisical attitude toward allegations of unethical behavior can no longer be dismissed.
On Sunday, The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, who was underwhelmed and a little offended by the one-dimensional nature of Clinton’s campaign debut, asked a variety of uncomfortable questions regarding the effect of the Clinton Foundation’s suspect donations on the former first family.
“Did Clinton go soft on Algeria because it sent this check to her husband’s foundation?” she asked. “Did the foundation intentionally try to slip the check past the folks at State? I doubt it. Did Algeria give simply because its government was moved by the plight of the Haitian people? Pardon my cynicism.”
Which brings us to greed, and the Yiddish word, chazer. It means “pig,” but has a specific connotation of piggishness and gluttony. This is a chronic affliction of the Clintons, whether it comes to campaign fundraising (remember the Lincoln Bedroom?), compulsive speechifying (another six-figure check to speak at a public university?) or assiduous vacuuming up of foundation donations from donors of questionable character or motives.
Thus, as Hillary Clinton left the State Department — when she was clearly contemplating running for president — the newly renamed Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation could have done the prudent thing and kept the existing restrictions in place. Instead, the foundation quietly freed itself from the limitations, creating ethics questions that could have been avoided.
“The notion of the sloppiness and the greed,” Marcus said in an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, “is simply inexcusable.”
She isn’t alone.
“Clinton’s crisis management team makes a big deal of the fact that ‘Clinton Cash’ author Peter Schweizer hasn’t proven a ‘quid pro quo.’ Really?” National Journal’s Ron Fournier asked. “It takes a pretty desperate and cynical campaign to set the bar of acceptable behavior at anything short of bribery.”
Fournier lamented that Clinton’s candidacy is likely to only reinforce the American public’s total loss of faith in the efficacy and goodwill of public servants.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that foreign companies and countries expected something in return for donating to the Clinton foundation rather than the countless other charities not connected to the U.S. presidency.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to know the Clintons violated ethics rules.
You don’t have to be a historian to know their ethical blind spot has decades-old roots.
Even ostensibly neutral reporters are firing up the air-raid siren over Clinton’s various indiscretions. Politico reporter Glenn Thrush noted on Sunday that the former secretary’s attempt to project herself as an unassuming figure on a humble listening tour is being weakened by the scandals that dog her.
“[T[hat effort is being undermined by a parallel storyline, and the well-executed New Hampshire trip was blown off basic cable by a barrage of stories Thursday documenting questionable practices by the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation — and illuminating once again what appeared to be the same old indifference to boundaries between charity, politics and wealth,” he wrote. “And several top Democrats told me they were worried, too, about the accumulation of stories — ‘at some point the weight just pulls everything down,’ one told me.”
These aren’t attempts to scuttle Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Quite the opposite, in fact. These and other commentators and reporters are sounding alarm bells precisely because they want to see this campaign succeed. The fear that the former secretary of state’s latest presidential bid is imploding even before it truly begins is growing prevalent. In concert with The New York Times editorial board virtually begging the Clintons to come out and address their family foundation’s apparent improprieties, it’s clear that the commentary class is panicking over the Democratic Party’s last, best hope to retain control of the White House in 2016.
VDH hit the nail on the head. “Everyone” knows the Clintons are crooked, and “no one” really cares. We are the same people who elected Obama, clearly the least qualified and most incompetent president in history, TWICE.
She will weather the storm just fine.
FReeper Grampa Dave perhaps said it best:If Hiterily gets elected with enough votes in Congress, these will be the good old days.
The purists, who will stay at home because our candidate couldn't walk on water without getting the soles of his Teva's wet will have gifted us with another Clintoon pillaging. *
"Really, Seriously, A Criminal Investigation?"
"...there's no email evidence at all!"
Bill brings Monica to the American people through the office of the presidency.
Hillary brings nothing short of a dirty mafia operation through the office of Secretary of State.
Together they are the definition of cause for cynicism to the American people.
This may stand with sycophant democrats if she’s even able to stand through to the nomination, but I still say the Independents are growing and not in her favor. They are the deciders, in any event.
I think we have no RINO’s running except for Lindsay Graham, and he’s a long shot among the finer competition.
Cruz is no “Palin” on any qualified level, and he doesn’t scare easily by media meanies.
I’m ashamed to admit it, but back in 1992 when Bill won the Presidency, I was willing to give him a chance. He sounded so reasonable.
But, I soured early—the two scandals that did it for me were the cattle futures and the Billy Dale/Travelgate episode.
The first was an obvious bribe, for anyone familiar with financial markets. The money Hillary made came straight out of the Tyson VP’s account—REFCO had a broker, “Red” Bone (believe it or not) who was known for allocating trades. The way it worked was he was told, “Red, make some opposing trades, and put most of the winners in Hil’s account and the losers in mine.” No risk to the broker. In the old days, they called it a “bucket shop” when trades weren’t routed to the exchange floor.
The second, Travelgate, was really bad, too. The Clintons could have fired Mr. Dale, because it was a politically appointed post. He had done a good job as travel agent, and multiple administrations of both parties had kept him on. But, Hillary didn’t want it said that she fired him to give the job to her pals, so she trumped up some embezzlement charges and put him through legal hell. A jury disposed of the charges in a couple of hours.
I didn’t need Whitewater, or Vince Foster, or the Clinton Foundation to make up my mind... but those events only confirm the obvious.
Wow. It sounds like you buy into the media nonsense.
Sorry, I certainly meant to include Jeb Bush as a RINO.
Jeb and Graham.
Media nonsense on whom? There is no media nonsense on Cruz, because it’s preposterous and won’t sell. He handles them over lunch.
The Cruz resume, the brains and the meteoric career rise through the ranks are no mirage. Neither are they the result of being used by a Progressive Republican on a ticket to nowhere.
I despise the media, but Cruz doesn’t mind. He can face off media with one hand behind his back, all day long.
Chuck Todd reported on Meet the Press that at the Correspondents Dinner, he heard plenty of democrats complaining against Hillary, and then added, “just wait until they decide to go public”.
Your precious media will do the same thing to Cruz. And they don't have to give him space to defend himself. They will say he's stupid. They'll probably say he's Mexican. The truth doesn't matter. What are you going to say then, since you believe what the media says about Palin?
The media is not going to let a conservative Hispanic survive unscathed, like they wouldn't with a woman.
Look, no one says Palin has the resume of Ted Cruz, not even Palin, or that she was deft at handling the media, or actually enjoyed the debate with them. She was a zing queen for sure, but she could not strap it on them and didn’t, ever.
Cruz outsmarts the media and they’ve experienced the sting. That is why already they respect his skills and say so. Get over it.
I believe the PRESS is SEEING that Hitlery has done all this to herself.
Hard to defend someone who foolishly sinks themselves and the FACTS of what they did are CLEAR, OBVIOUS, and NUMEROUS.
Looks to me like the "Clinton Act" may have finally run the gamut.
The term RINO has been way overused.
Palin fought the oil companies and won. Palin was a governor.
Cruz may have gone to a better school, although very left-leaning. Cruz never won a real office. Cruz is in the Senate, which is the dying ground of conservatism, and he had some job in a RINO administration, carrying RINO water.
When the media gets done with Cruz, people will think he was a Mexican who came across the border illegally and dropped out of high school.
“Something big has targeted the Clintons.”
Yup. The chattering class has ignored their scandals for 22 years. Then suddenly . . .
Forgetaboutit. Cruz will handle the media as well as anyone.
Not to worry. This does not guarantee a win, but it’s a certainty he will not be palinized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.