Posted on 04/25/2015 6:34:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It is admittedly difficult to bear the obsequious servility that punctuates The New York Times editorial boards latest gentle attempt to convince Hillary Clinton that she has a serious problem on her hands. Viewed, however, as a window into the thinking of the Democratic Partys terrified pragmatists who are slowly coming to the realization that they backed the wrong horse, The Times latest is clarifying. It is a desperate and helpless demand that Clinton somehow stop the bleeding.
Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation, the global philanthropic initiative founded by former President Bill Clinton, The Times editorial averred. There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deals eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee.
Well then, why did this editorial need to be written in the first place? Of course, the admission that corruption can neither be proven nor disproven is a condemnation of Clintons conduct rather than a defense of it. They know as well as anyone else that the evidence that presumably would exculpate Clinton was destroyed by her own hand. That reality certainly complicates the editorial boards effort to exonerate the prohibitive Democratic nominee.
It doesnt take long before The Times gets into the meat of the issue. Though they cling with all the conviction of a convert losing their faith to the notion that Clintons scandals are political rather than substantive in nature, the editorial board is nevertheless moved to demand that Hillary and Bill Clinton personally address the damaging allegations swirling around them and their family charity.
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president, The Times editorial read. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Algore is on standby...
Clearly no.
They are trying to hobble her candidacy before she sucks all the air out of the room in the hopes that someone else (quickly) fills the void.
People really need to knock it off with this "Obama's gonna be President for life!" conspiracy nuttiness. Obama is not going to run for a third term. It's not permitted. Furthermore, he is behaving exactly as a lame duck who knows his days in office are numbered, flipping the bird at everyone.
It’s just internet bs, see 22nd amendment.
They have to scared though because Hilliarity! is such a clutz it'll be one bonehead revelation after another.
Good post.
We heard a lot of FReepers saying the same thing about ole BJ back in the late 90s.
Being a former POTUS is way more fun than being POTUS, especially when you have collected those huge bribes for pardons.
Valerie Jarrett does not want Hillary Clinton to be the Democrat Nominee. Hillary isn't liberal or muslim enough for the Obama crowd. I know, scary thought, right?
However, all of a sudden, the New York Times is finding all sorts of scandals around Clinton. These are direct leaks to the NYT from ValJar.
The Obamas will follow the Clintons. Barack will go on the lecture circuit collecting a half million per speech while Michelle will buy a Senate seat in a safe, blue state. Together, they'll set up a "foundation" to peddle influence.
Bet on it. They're not amateurs anymore. They've learned from the best.
evidence? doesn’t matter.
what matters is the humongous magnitude of the charge
Here’s a scenario for you. Michelle runs for Potus with some as yet unknown and unimportant VP character. She then nominates Barak for Scotus at the first opportunity.
Never happen.
Those jobs mean a lot of work.
They’re ready to collect the big bucks and retire.
(Holder could be the SCOTUS guy though)
“No confidence” by the NYT still means a vote for her in November 2016.
I’m hoping Hillary resists the call for her to drop out of the race.
I think she could be easily beaten.
Fauxahontas however has exactly what the ultra left wants. And a strong populist message that 47% lazy slugs will love.
the Democratic Partys terrified pragmatists who are slowly coming to the realization that they backed the wrong horse-—uh hitlary is a pig in a human suit.
Hillary Clinton has to run for the Presidency and run hard. If she drops out, it will be a tacit admission that she has “done something wrong”, which she will never admit to.
If anything this scandal will give her additional resolve to go forward with her campaign and she will be pulling out all the stops.
No big deal she’s just doing what all democrats do sell our besides nobody has any proof after all 30,000 e-mails have been deleted good luck on busting her.
Not that many people were actually backing this horse. It's just that most of the other candidates are already in the holding pen at the glue factory.
“A picture is worth a thousand words.” Good post.
No “indication”, huh. Well, Slimes, why couldn’t you try doing some “indicating”, it worked for Watergate, and you claim to be so good at reading the minds of conservatives, interpreting everything they say or didn’t say.
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.