Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Campaign Isn't Answering Questions About Sketchy Clinton Foundation Donations

|

C-SPAN

The latest installment in the ongoing saga of shady Clinton Foundation finances is a story involving a deal in which Russians took take greater control of a  company, Uranium One, which controlled a significant amount of U.S. uranium.

The details are somewhat involved, but the gist is that because the takeover deal involved uranium, a strategic asset, it required approval from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Around the same time the deal was going through, the Clinton Foundation took millions of dollars in donations from a foundation run by the founder of Uranium One and did not disclose the transaction, in defiance of an arrangement made with the Obama administration to identify Clinton Foundation donors. In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by a Russian financial firm linked to the Kremlin for a speech in Moscow as the deal was happening. The New York Times has an extensive report, building on work from Peter Schweizer's book about the Clinton Foundation's foreign funding, Clinton Cash, here.

The questions raised by the story are obvious: Did the millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Bill Clinton for his speech, have any influence on Clinton's decision as Secretary of State to approve the project? 

The details of the story that have been reported so far establish no direct causal link between the donations or the speech and Clinton's approval of the deal. But at minimum the report highlights the complicated and potentially ethically dicey ways that the Clinton's massive, globally connected foundation intersected with Hillary Clinton's work as America's top diplomat.

The reaction to the story from team Clinton, meanwhile, does not exactly inspire confidence that the Clintons have been entirely transparent about what transpired.

For example, Fox News reporters, also drawing from Schweizer's book, dug into various aspects of the story, and found evidence that officials from Kazakhstan's state-owned energy company Kazatomprom visited with Bill Clinton at his home in New York to inquire about a possible deal with Westinghouse, which is also involved in the nuclear energy business. When contacted about the meeting by Fox News, a Clinton Foundation spokesperson denied that the meeting had ever happened. But when Fox News produced photos of the meeting, the Clinton spokesperson changed the story and said that it had happened.

In short, Clinton's spokesperson flatly lied about a meeting Bill Clinton had with foreign officials, and admitted the truth only when presented with evidence to the contrary.

As I said earlier this week, these sorts of report,are likely to dog Hillary Clinton's campaign for a while, in part because of the book's impending release and in part because major news organizations have made arrangements with Schweizer to follow up on his reporting. But they're also going to stick, I think, because they play into the public perception of the Clinton's as vaguely shady and corrupt, as power players and dealmakers who can never be fully trusted. That the Clinton foundation failed to report key donations, and that Clinton representatives have plainly lied to reporters about Bill Clinton's dealings, only amplifies this impression.

So far, Hillary Clinton's campaign hasn't responded to particular questions about the book or related stories. Instead, the campaign and its allies have dismissed Schweizer as a smear artist while insisting that the book has no credible evidence of any real wrongdoing. The evidence, however circumstantial, appears to be strong enough though that it is raising questions amongst some of Hillary Clinton's supporters. Noting the Clinton team's dismissals as well as its disinclination to respond to various questions, Politico reported today….

But that might not be enough to quell the firestorm on a day when a spokesman for Clinton's foundation told Reuters that the charity would review and refile its non-profit tax forms for several recent years — to correct errors and omissions. And some longtime Clinton backers were feeling a little queasy.

"I think it should be a concern, yes. It's a legitimate concern and I think that Sec Clinton needs to be able to explain this in a straightforward, constructive, thoughtful way," said Clinton fundraiser Peter Buttenwieser, a philanthropist from Philadelphia. "And I think the sooner that she does that, the better. And I assume that she will rise to the occasion and work through this, it's part of running and I think it's critical that she do it and not wave it off."

(Watch the entire Fox News report on the uranium deal below. The relevant bit is between the 5 and 6 minute mark.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

253 responses to “Hillary Clinton's Campaign Isn't Answering Questions About Sketchy Clinton Foundation Donations

  1. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Maybe you should share this with Hillary as she will likely be unemployed when the next president is sworn in.

      1. They’re not gonna get her a jail job?

        I don’t know how well she’d do on the test though.

  2. a story involving a deal in which Russians took take greater control of a major U.S. uranium company, Uranium One.

    Shouldn’t that be “tooked” or “takenened”? 🙂

    1. Speaking of – did Welch ever change “Istanbul” to “Ankara” in that genocide piece?

      1. You mean Constantinople?

        1. Why did Constantinople get the works? That’s nobody’s business but the Turks!

          1. +1 giant

      2. No, don’t use the g-word, Turkey will sever ties with us! Instead, call it selective population control activism.

    2. I thought it was ‘tooken.’

      Also, of course, it’s nucular. 😉

    3. were given

    4. Reason (or is that raison?) was looking for an editor a few months ago. Looks like they didn’t hire one.

  3. Hillary not answering questions? I’m stunned. Really. Look at me. See?

    1. Dang Epi… you do look quite gobsmacked. Shall I get you a fan? Smelling slats?

      1. smelling salts even.

        Edit button!!!

      2. No…I’m ok…though if you have some cocaine…

        (only if it’s good, purified cocaine)

        1. Um… All I have these bath salts…?

          OMG!!! EPI IS GOING TO TURN INTO A CANNIBAL ZOMBIE!!!!

        2. His nose is all blown out, so you have to put it in his butt.

          1. Well, get to it!

            (pulls down pants)

            1. I’m not going in there, not after you bit off that orphan’s hand. You know how hard it is to unload a off-handed orphan on orphanBay?

              1. No. That’s what I “pay” you for. Now get back to work!

                (spreads cheeks)

        3. Send Episiarch the Whore of Awakening–quickly!

        4. The medicinal kind?

      3. “Dang Epi… Shall I get you a fan?”

        Don’t encourage him, Swiss; Epi needs fans like SugarFree needs subscribers.

      4. Ah do declayuh! Epi’s gaht thuh vaypuhs!

      5. On occasion when I have the vapors, smelling sluts has cleared my head.

    2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    3. Hillary not answering questions?

      Why should she? It’s her turn.

  4. The details of the story that have been reported so far establish no direct causal link between the donations or the speech and Clinton’s approval of the deal.

    MERE COINCIDENCE! FAKE SKANDULL!

    /derp

    1. Yes, I’m sure shreik will be along to kiss cankle as soon as the talking points are issued.

  5. “I’m rubber and you’re glue!”

  6. When contacted about the meeting by Fox News, a Clinton Foundation spokesperson denied that the meeting had ever happened. But when Fox News produced photos of the meeting, the Clinton spokesperson changed the story and said that it had happened.

    I don’t watch Fox News, but I’ll be damned if that isn’t the fucking blood and guts of investigative journalism right there.

    Rolling Stone is fabricating lies and Jon Stewart makes jokes while Faux News is out hustling (and out-hustling) the Clinton Foundation.

    1. Why do you applaud the Rethuglican War on Women?

      1. The Koch brothers pay him to do it.

        1. Why don’t the Koch brothers pay me to applaud the Rethuglican War on Women? Where do I apply for such a job?

      2. Outraged White Guy Brigade, duh.

      3. Why do you applaud the Rethuglican War on Women?

        I have stopped applauding the War on Wom… wait. No, I don’t applaud the war on… I mean I don’t now nor have I ever applauded it. The War on Women that is.

        Look, I just thought it was a good piece of journalistic trickery. I didn’t see it as disparaging her personally or as a woman. The whole hyper-defensive response to a false flag/loaded question bit worked perfectl… hey wait a minute!

    2. “I don’t watch Fox News, but I’ll be damned if that isn’t the fucking blood and guts of investigative journalism right there.”

      Impressive story by the New York Times too, I think. Didn’t they break the story?

      1. I believe it was fox though that contacted the Clinton campaign with the photo of her at the meeting that she didn’t attend.

  7. For example, Fox News reporters, also drawing from Schweizer’s book, dug into various aspects of the story

    So, fake scandal then.

  8. At long last, will foreign money sink the Clintons?

    1. NO CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY!!!!

      /Manbearpig

      1. Lots of all caps-in multiple posts on this thread…..do I have to point out that the use of the same is a sign of anger?

        1. Caps lock is cruise control for awesome.

          1. AWESOME HAS NO CRUISE CONTROL. IT IS BALLS TO THE WALL ALL THE TIME WITH A MANUAL TRANSMISSION AND NO BRAKES BABY!!!!!!!!!

            1. STEVE SMITH HAS NO CAPS LOCK

  9. Remember when the email scandal broke, and we were assured that there was nothing shady in her decision to maintain her official correspondence as SecState on a private server and to delete everything her team determined, after an extensive keyword search, was purely of a personal nature?

    Yeah, me neither, I don’t see any kind of pattern here at all. Probably some vast right-wing conspiracy at work, like the one that forced Bill to put his cock in Monica’s mouth.

    1. You mean those luscious lips and big tits had nothing to do with it?

      1. Stop making fun of Bill’s moobs. He’s a man of a certain age, he can’t help it.

        As for whether he has blow job lips, I’ll defer to his wife on that topic.

        1. The deference is understood, but do you think she knows? Or cares?

          1. Oh, “she” knows. It may have been a few decades, but she has more hidden in that pant suit than just dust and teeth.

          2. Who do you think find all those underage Thai male escorts for him?

    2. 30,000 personal emails deleted. From a two or three year period.

      Yeah, I”ve got 30,000 emails on my computer. 10,000 to 15,000 a year. Personal ones. My work ones are another 50,000 or so. I’m writing 200 emails a day, cuz I’m a busy guy.

      Who has 10,000 personal emails a year left on their computer? When you have a secretary, or probably five of them, and you’re supposedly putting in 15 hour work days six days a week.

      S

      1. OMG! I just figured it out! She is Palin’s Buttplug! It all makes perfect sense. Because obviously given the chance Hillary the half woman would clearly love to be Sarah’s butt plug. What half woman wouldn’t want that. She probably did have 30,000 emails on her computer that were personal.

  10. “The evidence, however circumstantial, appears to be strong enough though that it is raising questions amongst some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters.”

    Good. I hope a lot more start thinking about their favored candidate and actually learn of her record of misdeeds and mistakes.

    1. I hope this as well…about 20 minutes after she accepts the nomination.

  11. Editors, please correct the opening paragraph: ” … Russians took take greater control …” Thank you.

    1. Well, the buyout of UraniumOne occurred over a four year period from 2009-2013, so the dirty money wasn’t transferred to the Clinton Foundation until after some of the goods were delivered. Consider the 2009 transactions an earnest money deposit on behalf of the Ruskies like when buying a house.

  12. I’d say I can’t wait for the Stupid Party to hammer her on this and Benghazi and private email servers, but they won’t do it. They’ll let third parties do it for them, and those third parties will just hammer her on her fashion sense* and how wrinkly she is and it will cause a “War on Wimmiz!!” backlash.

    *which is terrible, and resembles a stylized Maoist sensibility, but par for the course for DC.

    1. Yes, I see that Slate has not mentioned this latest fake scandal, but is all over a Brietbart article on how she defended an accused rapist 40 years ago when she was still waiting for Bill to be elected Governor so that she could make partner at Rose Law Firm.

      1. Speaking of Rose Law Firm, didn’t some records somehow, inexplicably, disappear?

        1. Hillary has explained, again and again, that she has no idea how they resurfaced in her office. Seriously, isn’t it time people cut her a break and just accept that she is the victim of an incredibly unlikely string of coincidences which have the unfortunate effect of making her look bad?

      2. Now now, due process, complete with the right to legal counsel, was an important aspect of our legal system back then, before the rape crisis started in 1981 after Reagan legalized it.

        1. Speaking of 1981, were Hillary and other hoary Andrea Dworkin types railing against the For Your Eyes Only newspaper ads that featured the cheeks of Carol Bouquet?

      3. I don’t have a problem with her defending a criminal client. However, how will the “RAPE CRISIS!!!!” people twist logic so that Hillary Clinton is noble for defending a rapist, but no other rapists deserve due process?

        1. It will be fun to see Marcotte and Valenti have to argue for the value of due process to plug for Hil. As long as your lawyer is a Clinton, at least.

  13. After perusing the comments on a few articles about this, there really aren’t many people coming to her defense. This might actually rid us Clintons for a few years.

    O’Malley 2016 and beyond!

    1. insert appropriate “of the”

      1. O’malley 2016 and of the beyond?

    2. I was gonna say – you’re a fucking Clinton?!?!?!

      1. A steady stream of blow jobs and cash…who wouldn’t want to be?

        1. And to be responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children and lesser numbers of other folks including the four Americans in Benghazi?

          1. Get real. If you care as DEEPLY about the welfare of billions of humans as the Clintons do, what difference do a few hundred thousand dead children make? /sarc

      2. There’s only one Clinton worthy of a vote.

    3. That’s probably the best strategy for her. Ignore it and let it blow over. Your journobuddies are not gonna touch the story, and then you can claim that it’s ‘old news’ if it’s brought up again.

      1. In fairness, it is the NYT reporting that has conferred legitimacy on the story that Schweitzer initially broke. As an aside, I’m a big Schweitzer fan. I read his book Extortion exposing the insider trading in congress and he went after both sides of the aisle with equal verve. Dude is one of the last remaining true investigative journalists and focuses on corruption.

        1. I heard he has a book about Jeb Bush coming out too.

  14. “Did the millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Bill Clinton for his speech, have any influence on Clinton’s decision as Secretary of State to approve the project?”

    THESE ARE INSANE CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!

    “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. “

    1. But when you or I make an error with the IRS, we pay massive penalties.

      1. “Did I say ‘Zero’? Jeez, I meant ’50 million’. Are Russia, Dubai really “foreign”? I always thought that was like, you know, Asian or something. Whoops!”

      2. To be fair, when the foundation called the IRS for tax help, they kept getting hung up on.

    2. I’m sure it was just an accounting error. They must of used Turbo Tax like Tim Geithner.

      I do feel reassured that the Clinton cronies running their foundation, who will most probably be running the IRS, EPA, NSA, and every other agency, are the most competent administrators EVAH!!

  15. You know, the Republicans better be careful here or a viable Democratic alternative to Hillary is gonna jump into the race.

    I mean the number of scandals around her and the speed with which they are coming out before the campaign season has really even begun it almost looks like someone on the Democratic side who knows where the Skeletons are buried is leaking all this specifically to prevent her from winning the nomination in the first place

    1. the Elephant risk is two fold. Above, as you note. But also were the congress critters to start with the show hearings they will allow Hillary to play the victim card. Women rally around their own when it looks like a sister is being abused by some deranged middle aged man.

      1. The thing is, all the women who will come running to the defense of Hillary because of poor woman status are already defending her. She’s got the crazy vagina brigade already and anything anybody else does isn’t going to change that. These scandals though will make everyone else see her differently though.

      2. Jesus, does she have to shoot someone on live TV? What the fuck is wrong with people anymore? She’s scum! Jesus! You have more than enough time to find someone else.

        1. “Leave me the fuck out of this!”

          /Jesus

          1. He needs to come back and smite some of these extra scummy people.

      3. women rally around their own when it looks like a sister is being abused by some deranged middle aged man.

        We do?

        1. My wife sure the fuck doesn’t. So there’s two right out of the gate.

          1. Make it 3.

            1. Woo-hoo! Hope for America!

        2. I think being a libertarian gets you kicked out of the crazy vagina brigade.

          1. Not really a woman at all. Like Clarence Thomas is a white man.

            1. The progressives still have yet to appoint the first black man to the supreme court

        3. It bugs me when you people go on and on about how progs like to collectivize people and insert them into neat little groups, rather than seeing them as individuals. You all do it, too (we all do to some extent).

          1. That tendency gets on my nerves sometimes too (though I am sure I’m not completely innocent of it either).
            I know a lot of the time it is said humorously, but it is not very useful to act like everyone on the political left is in lockstep and agrees about everything. And it is even more counterproductive to act like women, black people, or whatever grouping of people are all on a page politically.

          2. its the first page in the blue team playbook, wake the fuck up

          3. Sometimes too it’s just sheer laziness, at least on my part. I don’t always feel like attaching 43 adjectives to a noun for the sake of precisely identifying who I’m talking about. That doesn’t make it right but it ain’t always malice.

          4. “You all do it, too”

            /Irony

        4. All women think the same, Kristin. As a woman you should know that without thinking. Which is also what all women do. Don’t do. You know what I mean!

      4. How the fuck is she a victim of anything? She was fucking secretary of state. She’s been considered a political player for decades. What the fuck is wrong with people? And aren’t there any women in congress who could abuse her?

      5. This may get confusing for lib women, though, because if Rasilio is right and another Dem jumps into the race, especially if it’s Warren, then many of them will switch to her camp. What will they do then? They’ll have to tear Clinton down to win the primary even as they accuse the GOP of misogyny for tearing her down.

        Or if Warren (or some interchangeable equivalent) does run, the Warrenites could just stay quiet and hope the GOP sufficiently destroys Clinton, then they reap the benefit in the primary, and can in turn use the fact against the GOP (“mispoynists!!”) in the general election.

        Which makes me wonder if, should another Dem candidate enter, maybe it would behoove the GOP candidates to stay reservedly quiet on Clinton and force the Dem challenger into a position of having to tear Clinton apart, thereby avoiding.the shriller accusations of “misogyny” while letting the Democrats fall into disunity.

    2. a viable Democratic alternative to Hillary is gonna jump into the race

      I can’t think of any realistic alternatives. Are there any popular Dems remaining that aren’t left of Marx?

      1. You underestimate how left of Marx the American electorate is. Or perhaps more accurately, how factually oblivious they are to the Left.

      2. A Harry Reid campaign would be awesome. Awesome for its pure terribleness.

        I’d love to see him show up for the first debate with a broken nose and rope burns around his neck.

      3. No, none who aren’t hardcore left. But with a cooperative media Fauxchahontis would be viable by playing up her populist cred and playing down her marxist ideals.

        The wookie would probably be a pretty popular choice as well

        1. I said it a year ago now and everyone laughed.

          They have no choice. They need a vagina more than a 41 year old trekkie virgin and the vagina that they poured all their hopes and dreams into to date has proven to be infected with some vile combination of leprecy and flesh eating bacteria.

          They may still dive in though.

          1. They need a vagina more than a 41 year old trekkie virgin

            Bwuhahaha that’s priceless.

    3. Let me affix my tinfoil hat in preparation for the following. So back in March, the NYP claimed that Valerie Jarrett was the source who provided the info on the Clinton’s private server at their home. Its well known that the Obamas and Clinton don’t get along, so are the Obamas, via Jarrett, whacking Clinton (knowing there are no other viable candidates) in order to clear the deck for…wait for it.. Michelle Obama to swoop in as the Democratic candidate for 2016??
      (I’m not Agile Cyborg)

        1. Well that settles it.
          *slinks back into hole in the ground*

          1. that said, I like your handle Chief. We’re still going up river. All the way.

            1. Never get out of the boat.

              1. God damn right!

      1. I had a similar thought. Kneecapping Hillary’s campaign would be a great way for the Obamas to weaken the Clintons’ power over the Democratic Party. If she either runs and loses, or has to bow out of the race because of all the scandals, seems like the Clinton “brand” suddenly won’t be so powerful. Maybe Obama and Jarrett figure they’d rather a Republican win in 2016 than Hillary, whom they can’t stand, so they can work behind the scenes to groom a suitably progressive candidate for 2020. I doubt it would be Michelle, personally. But whoever they view as worthy, a former two-term Democratic president is going to have a lot of say about the future nominee.

      2. He has said that Michelle would make an excellent President when asked if he supported Clinton for the office.

      3. I haven’t ruled that out. If Hillary can be considered because she is the wife of an ex prez, then why not that linebacker Barry is married to?

    4. fauxcahontas “takes your shit” Warren will be the sow they ride…and then Rome fell while she fiddled.

  16. Hillary is permamently damaged goods. Webb may not be the most charismatic but I think any remotely credible center”ish” dem can beat her in the primaries. Her entire campaign is a house of cards. 54% of ordinary Americans do not feel she is trustworthy. That number ain’t going down.

    1. Bitch, Clinton, Desert Candidate.

      1. Hahahahaha. Christ. I needed that.

        1. She has failed the Gon Tufar by, um, going too far.

          1. Abomination!

  17. Uh oh, I see smoke signals from Massachusetts.

    1. I really, really, really, really hope she gets in the race. I can’t believe the amount of progs that are all in on that mongoloid.

      1. I’m still praying for Biden.

        1. Clinton, Warren, Biden… Sounds like a circus.

      2. And all because of that brilliant speech where she explained to us stupid Libertarians that creating a business is all well and good, but the government still needs taxes in order to fix the roadz.

  18. Seriously though…. selling uranium to Russians? Give me a break. when was that ever not perfectly normal. Its not like she was smuggling weapons to Syrian rebels or something “illegal”.

    1. “[…]when was that ever not perfectly normal. Its not like she was smuggling weapons to Syrian rebels or something “illegal”.”

      You bet. Why, if an order comes in before noon, we’ve got that stuff packed and on the UPS truck by 4PM. No paperwork at all; we’re just selling ‘rocks’.

  19. Walken in a wig.

    1. No, because I’d vote for that.

    2. No, Walken has personality.

      1. And he can fucking dance.

      2. Also sense of humor, and impeccable delivery.

  20. Jesse, you can make that $20 check out to The Sudden Foundation.

  21. The time-honored, “None of your fucking beeswax!” defense.

  22. They should have waited to release a lot of this info after she got the party’s nomination. Even with all of the things she’s done already, there are still people fawning over her. This is typical with the idol worship with politicians in general.

    1. Nah. They want it out early. That way when it comes up later it will be dismissed as “old news.”

  23. Her donors and supporters have at least learned to wait it out before jumping in to her defense. Defending a Clinton scandal is a dangerous exercise. The first out with an explanation are merely the first to have their explanation completely discredited.

    “No such meeting ever took place!!”

    “Actually, we have pictures of the meeting.”

    “Well, maybe there was a meeting, but there was no sex involved!”

    “Actually, we have testimony that blow jobs were involved.”

    “Well, that depends on what “is” is. And whoever said that is a nut, slut, and right-wing conspirator!”

    “Actually, we have DNA evidence.”

    “Well, Darwin was wrong and DNA is a tool of the devil.”

    “Actually, the Devil just called and said that he is tired of defending the Clintons.”

    “Really? Did he hang up already? I haven’t heard from Carville in years!”

    1. *applause*

    2. Well done!

    3. Isn’t there a story about a guy ‘defending himself’ against his neighbor’s accusation that he broke his kettle? He offers 3 reasons in his defense: “Firstly, it was someone else who broke the kettle, not be; secondly, the kettle was already broken when I borrowed; and thirdly, there never was a kettle.”

    4. Bravo! Encore! Order some roses for Calvin…

  24. It is mindblowing that she hasn’t dropped out of the race already. Mark Sanford resigned from office for banging an Argentinian chick, something having no impact on his role as governor of SC.

    Here we have a person who should actually be on trial for fucking treason and yet she is the presumed front runner for the highest office in the land. It is nothing short of surreal.

    1. I know. This is such a harbinger of doom, that an openly corrupt and criminal candidate is being treated like it’s all just peachy. Heck, even the suspicion of one of the many, many things we know she’s done, let alone the things she may have done, should be more than enough to knock her out of public life altogether. Not all that long ago, it would have.

      What the hell changed in the media to make so much of it willing to support anything at all for TEAM BLUE?

      1. Nothing. They’ve always been this bad.

        1. I don’t know. It seems like they had (as a whole) lines they used to be scared to cross. Now it’s like there is no line at all. Seriously, Castro gets worse press in Cuba than the candidate du jour gets from our media.

          1. It’s that their base is more committed than ever. People aren’t voting for Hillary, they’re voting for the Democratic party, Hillary is just a place holder. When you know almost all of your voters will vote for you no matter what, the standards for ethics get pretty low. And the fact that they know that 90% of the media will voluntarily serve as their propaganda wing (certainly once the primaries are over), why shouldn’t they act like they’re made of teflon?

        2. And, of course, the problem is all the coverage this is getting. Back in the 1950s and 1960s this stuff happened but the media didn’t report it because it wasn’t important. So, rather than attacking politicians like Hillary we should return to the days of a media that kept secrets.

          /leftist media critic and leftist academics

          1. We’ve been fucked over in many ways, no doubt. The sad part is that this is yet another area that the founders didn’t anticipate going so bad. The media should be a bulwark against government corruption and abuse. Instead, it’s one of the causes of those things.

            1. “The sad part is that this is yet another area that the founders didn’t anticipate going so bad.”

              IMHO the core issue relates to the emergence of corporate fascism, more so than which side it picked.

              The problem isn’t that the media is completely in bed with the left, but rather that the media was bound to inevitably become in bed with one of the two sides. If the situation was reversed and the media completely backed the R team, I don’t think many here would be any happier.

              The founders saw the free press as an individual expression of ideas by your average citizen, because that is what it was back then. Yes there were newspapers, but they were not like the corporations of today.

              Corporations in every industry are in bed with the government, THAT is the fundamental issue.

    2. And if somehow she survives this and gets the Democratic Party presidential nomination, at least 45% of Americans will vote for her.

    3. It really is. I have to believe that once things get going she is going to go down in some magnificent way. I’m probably all wrong, but I’m OK with that.

      1. Taking hostages and receiving drone process?

          1. Or maybe she and Bill could do a Thelma and Louise.

      2. This woman is Mussolini in a pantsuit. She should be dealt with by the American people in the same way the Italians dealt with Il Duce.

        This is actually treason. I don’t brandy that term about lightly. Usually treason is done out of some principled sympathies with the enemy cause. This woman is willing to commit treason for a few million bucks. This is unfathomably bad, like something out of a fictional political thriller. But it’s real and no one seems all that shocked.

        If this woman gets elected President, it will seriously be our crossing the Rubicon moment.

        1. If we weren’t totally batshit insane these days, she’d be more likely to be prosecuted for crimes than nominated for office.

          1. This is Ethel Rosenberg meets Manchurian Candidate shit here.

          2. The mentality is increasingly like that of the late Roman Republic: everyone was always trying to prosecute and exile all their political enemies, and meanwhile everyone was on the take (Cato being perhaps the sole exception in his generation, but Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, all took bribes). The sense was, everyone does it, why make a fuss? The legal system (admirable as the theory behind Roman law and its legacy may be) was in practice just a weapon with which to punish one’s enemies; prosecuting an innocent person who ran against you for office was as natural as killing an enemy soldier in war: gruesome, but perfectly legitimate; and by the same token, using the law to prosecute an ally, no matter how corrupt they are, made as little sense to them as shooting your fellow soldier to save an enemy soldier. Society, they would say, is in a state of war, and those institutions are merely weapons to occupied and used against the Enemies of the People.

            1. Yeah, I try really hard not to draw too many parallels with the Late Republic, but the evidence keeps slapping me in the face.

              1. If you look at the 2 political factions of the late republic, there are many similarities to the R/D divide

                1. I keep meaning to read through Edward Gibbons’ signature work on the matter, but time has been a constraint as work is simultaneously busy and woefully undercompensating. But every news item that crosses my screen combined with my overall observations of the cultural degeneration of the West conspires to make the fall of Rome seem ever more appropriate. Though I’ll readily admit that I think it will be some combo of Roman fall combined with Soviet collapse.

    4. For the amount of money that so many people have “donated” to her, I’m guessing she owes a lot of favors. If she drops out she may get the Hoffa treatment.

    5. I’d call her the Menstrual Nixon but I think that time is long passed.

      Spent Hen Nixon?

    6. Didn’t the 2012, 2008, and a hell of a lot of other elections that didn’t make a lick of sense not prepare you for the Queen Hillary coronation?

    7. And, who amongst us would not bang an Argentinian chick? And, for that he is disqualified? You might as well disqualify all the men out there.

  25. (reposting)

    The pictures for the below AP stories were right adjacent to one another, inviting an obvious, if unfortunate comparison =

    Clinton running as a woman, but in subtle ways

    Maloney back as boxing promoter after sex change

    1. That is damn funny. The Clinton headline really does make it sound like she is transgender too but having a hard time committing.

  26. I honestly can’t believe that she is the only serious Democrat in the race. Is that really how it is going to happen?

    Everything I have heard from her recently has been just awful and stupid. And not awful and stupid in the way that she has always been awful and stupid. But incompetent and vapid to a degree that should be obvious even to her most mindless supporters. I don’t get it (and I don’t want to get it so don’t explain it to me). That’s really the best they can do? Or is it being “her turn” more important than anything, including winning the election?

    1. Martin O’Malley isn’t serious? What about that guy from the place who did that stuff a while back?

    2. There are a number of potential Democratic candidates. The media is just going along with the ANOINTED ONE crap.

      1. I volunteered, but they weren’t having it. Something about name recognition.

        1. What’s truly crazy is that she is incredibly inexperienced for her age. She has a couple of resume lines that work as qualifications, but that leaves decades of being nothing more than the spouse of a politician (or even less). And the positions she held she held without distinction, and I’m being nice to the old lady saying even that.

          So this inexperienced, incompetent, scandal-plagued, unpleasant person is all they have? Really?

          1. Senator.
            Secretary of State.
            Primary Presidential Consort.

            The titles are all that matter.

          2. I think part of it is the Obama Effect. I mean, talk about lowering the bar! Granted he is younger than she, but still I wouldn’t hire him for anything important with the little dribble he had on his resume in 2007.

            1. Of course not. There are some rare situations where you might roll the dice on an inexperienced candidate, but the big issue with doing that in any case is that it means you know next to nothing about what the candidate will do in office. Oddly, that’s even true of Clinton, who at least has been around politics for a long time.

          3. I think the problem is simple. No male candidate is going to try to push Hillary aside as that would in itself be enough to get crucified for getting in the way of the greatest “step forward” in human history.

            So that leaves it to the women to step forward. I’m honestly not sure what’s holding them back. Maybe a genuine sense that to challenge her would be to ‘betray the sisterhood’, which is a pretty fucked up sentiment frankly. Or maybe they gave up hope because they know they can’t outspend the Clinton campaign.

            1. How can anyone think this sort of thinking is a good thing? Holy shit are we in trouble.

      2. it almost seems like the Democrats got a major case of the kind of “test-prep”-itis, that some people suffered from in college (not I!)

        along the lines of =

        – I took a class just like this, I’m totally going to ace this thing, i don’t need to study
        – ok there’s going to be a few things i need to check before the test, but i have plenty of time
        – ok the exam is next week, so i should really read the book
        – ok, i skimmed the book, but i’ll totally do one or two quizzes before to get ready
        – ok, i’m failing all the practice quizzes, and the test is tomorrow
        – I think if i just answer “A, B, C, D” in sequence, i have a decent chance of passing

        1. FIFY:

          -I think if i just answer “WD,ATP,DIM” in sequence, i have a decent chance of passing

    3. I think most other potential candidates don’t want to end up on the wrong side of the Clinton machine.

    4. It cost far too much money for media conglomerates to follow more than one candidate from each party.

    5. I honestly can’t believe that she is the only serious Democrat in the race. Is that really how it is going to happen?

      And she’ll probably win, which is even more astonishing. Political tribalism and identity politics have become so acute that the Dems can’t divorce themselves from her without destroying their base and essentially ruining the coalition they’ve built over the last 25 years. Obama got away with beating her because he’s black; someone like Webb or Sanders wouldn’t get that same deference. We’re talking about someone who’s openly and unapologetically corrupt, and has been for decades. She makes Nixon look like Franklin Pierce, yet there’s a huge percentage of the population that thinks its no big deal because SHE’S GOT NEXT.

      And really, what does she bring to the table over a True Blue Socialist like Bernie Sanders besides her dusty pudenda? 1) despite her GRRRRRL POWER! propaganda, her whole career is highlighted by the fact that her position has been achieved entirely on the coattails of more powerful men; 2) Sanders supports all of the positions they love without ANY of the baggage, and 3) as much as I despise his politics, unlike Warren or Hillary I can respect the fact that he appears to stand for something other than his own self-aggrandizement or getting slurped by the media.

      The only good thing about Hillary getting elected is that it’s going to bring about the collapse that much quicker.

      1. Look, have YOU won the gold in the Coattail Riding Event? Have you?!

  27. She’s devoted her entire life to the service of her country, you booger eating morons.

  28. Okay, if I made buttons and bumper stickers that just said “It’s HER turn”, do you think her supporters would buy them without thinking through what such a statement really means in a democratic republic?

    1. Yes. Particularly if you use her campaign logo for the H.

      1. I would, but I’m concerned about copyright violations. In fact, the whole idea is scary because it could put me on the bad side of the Clintons and I can’t imagine that being a safe place to be.

      2. Hospital ER?

      3. “Particularly if you use her campaign logo for the H”

        Are you sure that isn’t the Hyster fork lift logo?

    2. Or, even worse, her supporters do think it through and put it on their bumpers regardless.

    3. You should give it a try.

      I want to make some “I didn’t vote” stickers for the next election because I can’t stand those “I voted” stickers and I’ve decided to give up voting, at least in statewide and federal elections. I doubt those will go as fast, though.

  29. I’ve been keeping an eye on Slate all day to see how they would address this issue. They have been on the fence lately over her candidacy, with fawning defenses of Hillary as the future of the Democratic party mingling with an overall sense of revulsion at her reptilian personality and lack of Progressive bona-fides.

    So far, not a word. An article about a decades-old Brietbart fake scandal where she defended a rapist while she was a practicing lawyer, but not a word on the Clinton Foundation.

    We seem to be nearing a tipping point where the left’s preference to support anyone with a double-digit lead in generic horse race polls a year and a half before election day competes with their growing worry that her popularity has once again peaked the day before she finally opens her mouth and starts talking.

    1. We can only hope Hillary Clinton is the future of the Democrat party.

      1. “We can only hope Hillary Clinton is the future of the Democrat party.”

        the past isn’t what it used to be…

        1. The past isn’t what it used to be.

          Another good bumper sticker…

    2. They are waiting for talking points to arrive and be distributed so the coordinated campaign can begin. Why do you think this thread has been free of anal obstructionisms?

      1. Oh man, the onslaught of Tony/Shrike talking point regurgitation once the talking points have been issued is going to be a sight to behold.

  30. Podesta, according to several attendees and Clinton staffers interviewed by POLITICO, attempted to reassure donors the campaign would respond to the allegations ? without letting them interrupt what is supposed to be a month of ramping up and fundraising. “If we try to chase every media story, we chase our own tail. We’re not going to do that,” a donor recalled Podesta saying.

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..17281.html

    Toast

    1. I would seriously prefer Bernie Sanders or the reanimated zombie of Joseph Engels himself. Those guys may be horrible incompetent and have disasterous ideas, but FFS they have principles that I don’t think they would betray.

      Hillary Clinton is driven by nothing but craven powerlust and greed.

  31. The silence on this thread from PB and Tony is deafening.

    1. Fake scandal. Bush did it too. Bush did it worse. You libertarians are supposed to be all about nuclear power and making money and cutting through regulation. You should be happy.

      How’s that?

      1. Pretty darn good.

      2. Too articulate. Should also throw in something about sexism.

        1. You’re only talking about this because she’s a woman.

          Happy?

          1. Perfect!

    2. They have not gotten their talking points yet…

    3. Also blissful.

  32. Why are we talking about this phony scandal when it has just been revealed that Rand Paul made a girl cry at recess when he was in third grade?

  33. “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 Wednesday. “We’ve found some interesting things.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/polit…..-bush-next

    Anyone up for crowd sourcing?

    1. Sure, you could crowdsource that.

      Or you could crowdsource my TV pilot for a courtroom drama called “Hung Jury”, which I plan on pitching to Logo.

      1. TV Pilot? You mean porn, right?

        1. No, a TV pilot. What about the story makes you think it would be a porn?

          1. You really need to watch more current TV.

  34. Ok, real question here.

    We all know that most Americans don’t really know much as far as particulars go in politics.

    With that said, what do you think the odds are of Hillary getting elected?

    I worry that they are far greater than I would hope.

    1. I have to think that this is the end of the line for her. I don’t care if it were a carbon copy of myself on every issue who was in Hillary’s position right now, corruption and outright treason of this sort is so beyond that pale that it is unfathomable someone would cast a ballot for her.

      The truly disturbing thing is that at this exact moment, she should be marched out of whatever building she’s cooped up in with cuffs on her wrists and ankles, a trial should be scheduled immediately, and her execution for treason should take place before the 2016 election. But we’re actually talking about will this cost her a few points in the polls in Colorado.

      1. it is unfathomable someone would cast a ballot for her.

        Dunno, man… Don’t underestimate the psychological urge to be loyal to the TEAM. Even if Mother Jones or DailyKos reports it (which is they only way that hardcore progs will hear about it) they’ll either convince themselves that it’s a minor misdeed being hyped up by the sexist ReTHUGlicans, or they’ll fall back on this notion that whatever a non-Democrat president would do to the country is much worse. Either way, there are plenty of progs that will justify voting for her.

        Add to this their virulent hatred of the Republican party, which I can certainly understand to a point. But they take it to the level of a recreational activity; after all, what are shows like the Colbert Report and the Daily Show but the 2-minutes hate for non-Democrats? Hating Republicans is part of these peoples’ heart and soul. I mean, for God’s sake, there are progressives who literally believe that there is a deliberate, orchestrated effort by the Republican party to stop black people from voting.

        It’s not hard to see how many progressives will still vote for her after this.

        1. Yeah, it’s funny, I was reading a thread about how here in St. Louis, the tiny town of Kinloch impeached their new mayor who threatened to clean up the city administration.

          Many posters (this is on NeoGaf, a video game forum but very leftist) jumped to the conclusion it was a conspiracy by white people. But everyone involved is black.

          And what is really a hoot, is that the reason for the impeachment was “voter fraud”, something Democrats (and Reason, as well) say doesn’t exist and any attempts to stop it is just voter suppression.

    2. At this point I’d say about 40%. I’ll give her an 80% chance of winning the primary and 50/50 at winning the general. Being the first woman with a good chance will help her, but being Hillary Clinton will help her opponent.

      1. I just keep seeing fresh ‘ready for Hillary’ stickers. I think she is going to have a rabid base, and will defiantly be riding the First Woman in the Whitehouse wave. I think this coupled with the Repubs choosing some uninspired statist, may actually give her a chance.

        I would probably agree with 40%, but I’m thinking this one may have some pretty low voter turnout, if the Republican nominee is going to be as shit as I think they will be. Idk, I’m defiantly not looking forward to campaign season.

  35. Ok, real question here.

    We all know that most Americans don’t really know much as far as particulars go in politics.

    With that said, what do you think the odds are of Hillary getting elected?

    I worry that they are far greater than I would hope.

  36. Ok, real question here.

    We all know that most Americans don’t really know much as far as particulars go in politics.

    With that said, what do you think the odds are of Hillary getting elected?

    I worry that they are far greater than I would hope.

    1. Very little. She doesn’t energize young people like Obama did, but she does energize the Republican base. She can raise money (for her campaign, Bill and their charity by any means necessary) that has been proven. But I would rather see her epic fail after winning the Dem nomination instead of before it. Figure any Dem gets 45 percent of the vote just for having a D next to their name, but put in someone like Warren and you could see that number grow on the promise to make government bigger and more expensive.

  37. Triple post.

    Wow.

    1. Meh. Phil Jackson’s been doing that for years.

      1. Thank you for making me laugh. I’m seriously on the verge of breakdown right now given the brazen corruption going on here.

  38. Perhaps HRC will create a “safe space” to go to in her campaign office when reporters want to ask her mean, hurtful questions.

  39. Assuming the Shrill ends up prex, I can see the WH being dismantled and sold piece by piece. Now that in itself isn’t a bad idea, but her vig on the deal is more than I care to consider.

  40. I know this is serious stuff, and I should not laugh, but I cannot help myself. Every election cycle is like watching a train wreck. =D

    1. No. It’s like being in a train wreck.

      1. /Maniacal Laughter

        Good point. Pro L.

        =D

    2. “I know this is serious stuff, and I should not laugh, but I cannot help myself. Every election cycle is like watching a train wreck. =D”

      Yep, right there with you.

      1. Right on. =)

  41. vaguely shady and corrupt

    Vaguely?

  42. Of course they aren’t answering such questions. Nothing in their experience of either the media or the Republican Party leads them to think they have to.

  43. And the role of Cersei Lannister will be played by Hillary Clinton.

  44. U just HAD to show this

    http://www.slate.com/articles/….._hurt.html

  45. what Diane replied I can’t believe that you able to profit $8085 in 1 month on the internet . read this….. http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  46. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  47. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  48. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  49. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  50. pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  51. my Aunty Sophia just got a nearly new BMW X4 SUV just by some parttime working online with a lap-top
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.