The NY Times editorial board’s vote of no confidence in Hillary Clinton

Hotair ^ | 04/24/2015 | NOAH ROTHMAN

[SeekAndFind]

It is admittedly difficult to bear the obsequious servility that punctuates The New York Times editorial board’s 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 Party’s 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 deal’s 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 Clinton’s 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 board’s effort to exonerate the prohibitive Democratic nominee.

It doesn’t 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 Clinton’s 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

[mrsmel]

Yes. I don’t think he’d even want the job for any longer, this has been too much like work for him, now that it’s about over (and in spite of spending all his time either on golf course or on vacation).

[Popman]

I think your post is spot on...

I think a deal will be made to have her take the VP slot...

Hillary as VP's will be ignored by the media...

Plus her debate with the GOP nominee (which should be epic fun), won't matter that much...

[samtheman]

Bumper sticker: The Iranian Bomb With Clinton Uranium and Obama’s OK

[Calpublican]

Yep. Hence my question. Lol!

[BlueDragon]

The old “there is no evidence” line doesn’t sell too well, when anyone who has a brain cell knows that the statement is only true because Hillary destroyed that evidence in her private server.

But Bart, destroying evidence is a felony.

Accepting monies from foreign dignitaries while serving in Federal public office is a crime. Your family's "Foundation"?

How is that tax returns from 5 years ago are just now being amended? Won't there be a penalty for those past the 2 years past due mark? That equates to admission that there was a pattern of concealment and falsified documentation submitted to the United States government (as required by law).

The amending of those returns fits a pattern of lack of transparency, manipulation and deceit, your Honor. We the people have been lied to long enough by this grifter.

Defense Council: Objection! Prosecution just called my client a grifter!

Judge: Sustained. Let the charge of Hillary Rodham Clinton being a grifter struck from the record.

Prosecutor: I withdraw the allegation "grifter" from being narrowly applied to Hillary Clinton, your Honor. It's not just herself...it's also her husband, her relatives (brothers) and yet others who are high echelon white collar grifters who through Hillary's position of influence as Sec. of State have been benefiting themselves and their own private interests while Hillary served in public office.

Defense: Objection!

Judge: Council will approach the bench.

Argumant in the alternative

Disjunstion elimination

[BlueDragon]

These are direct leaks to the NYT from ValJar.

Eventually Jarrett will step on her own *ic*.

She keeps leaking (and she may have to) then it's a-swingin' in da' breeze.

All it will take is the right wrong people to have had enough of her and Barack the Majic Zipporu.

Someone close enough...but a cunning triangulating liar. A quiet sort of a "billy jeff" who is thought to be trusted but would thrive on the excitement of being a player (payback time for little miss payback bitch).

Deep Throat x duex?

Who will it be? NSA should spill here, a little tinkle in the corner(s) over there, a tip to the right investigators elsewhere.

Is there not a Patriot mole ANYWHERE within the NSA?

Wreck 'em now buddy (hello, hello NSA can you hear us now?) wreck 'em before it's too late and the Democrat Party chieftains wreck the United States forever.

[Steve0113]

bookmark

[PhilDragoo]

[BlueDragon]

Empowering Russia, Empowering Iran

What Difference Does It Make

Apt comparison. But the Smart Power smartest pantsuit in the world doesn't seem to get it.

To her, it's all just words which can be "smartly" understood, controlled and manipulated -- and then "wa-laa" all will yield to the sheer brilliance of her "reset button". (she should stick with what she can actually handle, and do best, like tickling Huma's reset button?).

That spoiled rotten, nasty stupid little bitch Hillary doesn't have a clue. She'd hand a 'reset' button to a Joseph Stalin.

A different Phil once famously said

How's that working out for you?

[Fred Nerks]

The female of the species is truly more dangerous than the male.