Sunday, April 26, 2015

AND IT GROWS --- Hillary Clinton's Family Foundation Scandal --- Phase Two: THE NOT QUITE FULL CONFESSION BY SOMEBODY ELSE


OOPS, THERE IT IS FOR THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN, AND BILL, HILLARY AND CHELSEA CLINTON

Oh,  "Yes, we made some mistakes"  [Sung to the tune of "Yes, we have no bananas"]                                                                                                                                    ---   Sung  falsetto by Clinton Foundation Acting-CEO Maura Pally



Earlier today (4/26/25) Maura Pally, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation's acting CEO, in a Home Page posting  (See  "A Commitment to Honesty, Transparency, and Accountability" by Maura Pally, Acting CEO and Senior Vice President, Women and Youth Programs, 4/26/15,  Clnton Foundation Home page [and probably other social media and E-Mail distribution] https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2015/04/26/commitment-honesty-transparency-and-accountability#sthash.smdAcljE.dpuf),  admitted that there were  some mistakes in the Clinton Foundation's listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms.   In her posted statement on behalf of the foundation, Pally said  this:   "Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year's form—our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website."

The statement was made as the author of "Clinton Cash ...," Peter Schweizer,  has been further delineating the claims made in his forthcoming book.  In his latest interviews, Schweizer says that  there is a clear pattern in which the Clinton Foundation received donations from foreign governments before the U.S., under Clinton's leadership as Secretary of State, made favorable decisions in regards to those nations.

Interestingly,  the Clinton Foundation's acting CEO's statement also acknowledged that those donations  were not always properly reported.

"So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don't happen in the future," the statement says. "We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day."

Rather than give a specific citation, I give the results of my 2:00 PM EDT Google search for "Pally Clinton Foundation Yes We made some mistakes"  [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Pally+Clinton+Foundation+Yes+We+made+some+mistakes] :

"Clinton Foundation: "Yes, we made mistakes"  --   CNN‎ - 2 hours ago
"Yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our ... to ensure they don't happen in the future," Pally wrote. ... in The New York Times for some of the work by its Clinton ...   --   A Commitment to Honesty, Transparency, and Accountability  --   Clinton Foundation‎ - 5 hours ago
Clinton Foundation Acknowledges Mistakes as Schweizer Calls for Investigation  --   Bloomberg‎ - 3 hours ago"

And then the added link:  "More news for Pally Clinton Foundation Yes We made some mistakes"  [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Pally+Clinton+Foundation+Yes+We+made+some+mistakes&tbm=nws]:

"[Repeat links deleted]
Clinton Foundation Fesses Up: 'We Made Mistakes'  --  Daily Caller-2 hours ago
Clinton Foundation admits mistakes in tax forms  --  Yahoo Politics-2 hours ago
Clinton Foundation Admits Mistakes On Tax Filings  --Huffington Post-43 minutes ago
Clinton Foundation acknowledges missteps, commits to transparency  --  Blog-Washington Post (blog)-40 minutes ago"

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "we'll just amend our tax returns" story aint going to fly. Money stashed in a Candian bank account. Now thats rich.

Anonymous said...

Hillary suggested Bill go to view the earthquake in Katmando.

Bill said that pussy will do.

Anonymous said...

hillary makes a deal with the russians so they can corner the market on uranium and ferry it over to iran so it can wipe out israel.

that story will blow over. we all know the jews always come up short on these deals.

Anonymous said...

"Mistakes were made...."

Is somebody kidding with this?

Wake up people, the Clinton insiders and even the Clintons themselves are laughing at everybody... even most of their own contributors and supporters...

Anonymous said...

if hillary goes down, it will be a first.

Anonymous said...

OK, so hiding the identity of actual donors is now a "mistake"....

Or maybe it was getting caught by Reuters that was the "mistake"

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "WHAT THE MSM HAS FOUND TO CONFIRM THE "CLINTON CASH..." CLAIMS ABOUT BILL AND HILLARY, AND THEIR CLINTON FAMILY FOUNDATION" EDITION

BREITBART NEWS: ELEVEN FACTS HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED BY THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA THAT CONFIRM SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS RAISED-IN OR FLOWING-FROM PETER SCHEIZER'S FORTHCOMING BOOK, "CLINTON CASH..."

According to breitbart News, "... [p]erhaps the most surprising thing about the forthcoming book rocking Washington right now is the number of stunning facts liberal media outlets have already confirmed and verified are accurate [ ] --- facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.'..." (See "11 EXPLOSIVE CLINTON CASH FACTS MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONFIRM ARE ACCURATE" compiled by the Breitbart News Staff, 4/26/15, Breitbart News Blog [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/11-explosive-clinton-cash-facts-mainstream-media-confirm-are-accurate/]).

Here's the list of MSM-confirmed facts compiled by the staff at Breitbart News:

1. CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration
2. CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank
3. CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti
4. CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration
5. CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.
6. CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept. [last week Bill Clinton resigned from that board]
7. CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns
8. CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors
9. CONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush’s Financial Dealings
10. CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.
11. CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton’s Home in Chappaqua, New York

The Breitbart News article cited above gives the MSM source for each of the above-listed factual confirmations, along with what Peter Scheizer has written or said about that item.

Anonymous said...

the church lady cant even defend hillary

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN/FOUNDATION AT THE TOP OF THE WEEK" EDITION

THINGS ARE BREAKING IN ALL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS ON THE HILLARY CLINTON-CLINTON FOUNDATION FRONT

NEWSMAX' CHRIS RUDDY DEFENDS THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AGAINST CHARGES MADE IN SCHWEIZER'S BOOK "CLINTON CASH..." --- WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT ?

A TOP HILLARY CLINTON FUNDRAISER SUPPOSEDLY JUMPED SHIP OVER ETHICAL QUESTIONS

THE NEW YORK POST -- AND BETSY MC GAUGHY -- SHOW HOW HILLARY HAD SIGNALLED THE CLINTON FOUNDATION SCANDAL WAS COMING -- WAY BACK WHEN

CHRIS RUDDY, WE HARDLY KNEW YUH
Suprising to some [not to me] the main guy at Newsmax has finally come out with a defense of the Clinton Foundation. Chris Ruddy has put up post that puts his personal imprimatur on many of the Brock-Fallon-Podesta-Carville-and many others talking points to pound on the Schweizer book and Peter Schweizer himself (See "In Defense of the Clinton Foundation" by Christopher Ruddy, 4/27/15, Newsmax [http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/]).

TOP HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN FUND RAISER JUMPS SHIP OVER ETHICS ISSUES
The Washington Times has reported that "... A top Democratic moneyman recruited by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign has put fundraising activities on hold, saying he can’t do it with a clear conscience because the former secretary of state has too many unanswered questions swirling around her. *** New York businessman Jon Cooper, who Team Clinton enlisted for its elite corps of early fundraisers known as “HillStarters,” said that he decided not to tap his donor network for Mrs. Clinton because she hasn’t provided enough answers about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she ran the State Department, her exclusive use of private email for official business as America’s top diplomat and her commitment to liberal priorities...." (See "Fleeing Hillary: Top Dem money man departs because Clinton hasn’t answered ethics questions" by S.A. Miller, 4/26/15, - The Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/26/hillary-clinton-foreign-donations-email-agenda-que/]).

BETSY MC GAUGHY AND HILLARY CLINTON'S FOUNDATION PROBLEM
Betsy McGaughy is one tough cooky, and she's on Hillary's case --AGAIN. Remember, it was Betsy McGaughy and Pat Moynihan that shut down Hillary-care in 1993, and that catpulted McGaughy into a position to help lead the New York State GOP comeback in 1994.

Now Betsy is saying this about Hillary, Bill and the Clinton Foundation: "Contrary to what is widely reported, the Clinton Foundation never agreed to stop raising money from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Such funding should have been off limits — because it risks the appearance that US foreign policy is up for sale. *** But even after Republican and Democratic senators pressed her in 2009 to accept limits, she refused. That should have red-flagged the Clintons’ intentions. *** Now, reports about a possible link between Clinton Foundation funding and State Department approval of the sale of US uranium interests to Russia should trigger demands that Hillary and Bill forswear foreign funds or end their bid to regain the White House...." (See "Hillary actually warned us about Clinton Foundation scandals" by Betsy McCaughey, 4/26/15, NY Post [http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/hillary-actually-warned-us-about-clinton-foundation-scandals/]). Hmmm! "FORESWEAR"... lovely word, even better as a concept....

Betsy's article is quite substantial; it rates a look; and look at whom she points for giving Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton a pass during confirmation hearings....
[McGaughy's work will be explored more in-depth by me sometime soon.]

Anonymous said...

Gale when your right your right. The piece by Betsy Perkins McCoughey Ross (did I leave any ex husbands out) was impressive as she pointed out something nobody else has. Hillary Clinton never said she wouldnt take the money. When a Clinton says I'm taking the dough, believe them.

Anonymous said...

betsy used to be hot. once woman hit 50 not so much

Anonymous said...

50 !!!

After 25 I'm done

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "INTO WEEK TWO OF HILLARY'S CLINTON FOUNDATION SCANDAL AND THE MSM KEEPS PILING-ON" EDITION

NEW YORK'S DAILY NEWS, STILL HAS SOME PROBLEMS JUXTAPOSING HILLARY CLINTON'S INTERACTIONS WITH CLINTON FOUNDATION DONORS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF HER DUTIES WHEN SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE

COMPARE THAT TO "FORBES" -- WHICH IS FAIR TO SAY -- SPEAKS TO AND SOMETIMES FOR A WEALTHIER SET THAN THE NY DAILY NEWS

According to the News' article, "... [a] top official at The Clinton Foundation admitted Sunday that the charity made 'mistakes' in the way it reported donations from foreign governments, but the prominent conservative author who first exposed the problems admitted that there's still no smoking gun to prove that anything illegal occurred. *** In a statement posted to the foundation's website Sunday, Maura Pally, the acting CEO for the charity started by former President Clinton and current 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton, wrote that the organization's 'error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations.'..." (See "Clinton Foundation admits ‘mistakes’ with foreign donations as corruption allegations grow" by Adam Edelman, 4/27/15, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-foundation-admits-mistakes-foreign-donations-article-1.2199606]).

Although the Daily News article took pains to point out what Peter Schweizer's claims were and were not, it concluded with this: "... In recent days, Hillary Clinton's nascent 2016 campaign has been on the defensive, repeatedly rejecting damning reports about her family foundation's dealings with foreign donors. *** On Thursday, the campaign dismissed a New York Times report that the chairman of Uranium One, a Canadian firm, used a family charity to secretly funnel $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary, as head of the State Department, had a role in approving the sale of the company to a Russian firm."

In covering basically the same material, the Forbes in-house taxes and litigation guru, Robert Wood said this: "... [T]he Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has announced amending multiple years of tax returns. *** The subject is embarrassing: donations by foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton resigned from the Foundation’s board after she officially announced her Presidential run. But upon becoming Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton promised that the Foundation would stop accepting donations from foreign governments. It turns out there were exceptions, and that the Foundation’s tax filings with the IRS were less than transparent... Although the Foundation does good works, extensive donations by foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State are hard to explain[. As it happened, they] violated her promise, and the President’s code of ethics. Even worse, it now may look as if she tried to keep the embarrassing and conflict-triggering gifts quiet. Like that private email server, hidden...." (See "Amending Clinton Foundation Taxes Can't Change The Past" by Robert W. Wood, 4/27/15, Forbes Magazine [http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/04/27/amending-clinton-foundation-taxes-like-cleaning-monica-lewinskys-dress-cant-change-the-past/]).

Galewyn Massey said...

MORE UPDATE: THE "WITH HILLARY IT'S ALWAYS --- 'AND STILL MORE -- THE GINSU KNIVES' " EDITION

LOOKING AT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION SCANDAL, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR GOES RIGHT TO IT AND ASKS -- DOES HILLARY CLINTON HAVE A TRUSTWORTHINESS PROBLEM ? --- AND SINCE THEY ASKED THE QUESTION, THEY HAVE AN ANSWER READY AND HILLARY WON'T LIKE IT --- BUT THE MONITOR HAS A QUINNIPIAC POLL TO BACK IT UP

NPR'S "FACT CHECK" ABOUT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION'S CLAIMS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY WILL ALSO DISAPPOINT THE CLINTONS --- AS IF THEY REALLY CARED ABOUT IT ONE WIT

When the CS Monitor asks, "Does Hillary Clinton have a trustworthiness problem?" -- it is more than a rhetorical exercise. Writer Peter Grier goes on to state that "... [w]e ask the question in that manner because we’re talking here about voter perception of Mrs. Clinton more than our judgment of her character per se. Reports of the appearance of conflicts of interest between her role as secretary of State and foreign donations to her family foundation have generated lots of headlines in recent days. It’s possible that those reports are already taking a toll on her image.... Clintonworld is surely worried that might happen.... There is some indication that Clinton’s trustworthiness is declining with the US public. A new Quinnipiac survey that’s produced lots of buzz amongst political wonks found that 54 percent – more than a majority – of respondents said the former secretary of State was 'not trustworthy.' Only 38 percent said she was. Those are not great numbers for a presidential candidate...." (See "Does Hillary Clinton have a 'trustworthiness' problem?" Peter Grier, 4/27/15, Christian Science Monitor [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0427/Does-Hillary-Clinton-have-a-trustworthiness-problem]).

There was some good news in the poll for Hillary and her folks --- "... [If the] more general query is whether you have a favorable opinion of this politician or not, and Clinton’s numbers there don’t appear to be affected by the Clinton Foundation donation stories.... In the Quinnipiac survey Clinton’s favorable rating is 46 percent positive, higher than the trustworthy measure. This is in line with other polls.

_______________________________

According to NPR, "During the early phase of her presidential run, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by scrutiny of her family's foundation, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The Clintons have pushed back, calling the foundation among the most transparent foundations in the world...." However, the "facts" uncovered by NPR don't really back that up (See "Fact Check: Is The Clinton Foundation 'The Most Transparent'?" by Peter Overby, 4/27/15, Nnational Public Radio/ Blogs [http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/27/402625347/fact-check-is-the-clinton-foundation-the-most-transparent]).
First, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation isn't technically a "foundation".... wow! Next, you can't take any of what the Clintons say about any of this at face value; for example, at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, the former first daughter, now vice chairman of the Clinton Foundation said this: "Even though Transparency International and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations, we'll disclose donors on a quarterly basis, not just an annual basis." According to NPR, the problem with that is , Claudia Dumas, president of Transparency International, says that Transparency International never cited the Clinton foundation for its transparency.

In reality, the Clinton Foundation is about average for disclosure when compared to other similar entities by other political figures.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "SOMETIMES CHAIT HAPPENS" EDITION

LIBERAL WRITER STILL FINDS PROBLEMS WITH HILLARY AND BILL CLINTONS' FAILURE TO TREAT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AS A SERIOUS PROBLEM OF PUBLIC ETHICS AND A CAMPAIGN LIABILITY FOR HILLARY

CHAIT ALSO TAKES ON ANOTHER LIBERAL WRITER WORKING FOR THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN OVER PERSONAL ATTACKS AND SLOPPY DEFENSE OF THE CLINTON FOUNDATION

More than one week into candidate Hillary Clinton's family foundation scandal and Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine is still challenging the Hillary Clinton Campaign over the Clinton Foundation.

He's still saying things like this: "The Clintons’ post-presidential career has turned out to be a serious problem, especially for people like me, who will almost certainly vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Clintons’ foundation work and Bill Clinton’s speech-for-hire business put the couple in the position of asking for money from people or businesses who had or have reason to curry favor from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of State or as potential future president. Rather than treat these conflicts as a serious problem of public ethics and a campaign liability, the Clintons handled it haphazardly, creating significant problems for her 2016 campaign and legitimate reasons for undecided voters to doubt her and her husband’s commitment to good government...."(See "If This Is the Best Defense of the Clinton Foundation, She’s in Trouble" by Jonathan Chait, 4/28/15, New York Magazine/ Daily Intelligencer/ The National Intereest [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/clinton-foundation-needs-better-defense.html]).

Mr. Chait also took apart Joe Conason, a liberal writer now acting as a retainer for HRC's team.

According to Chait, "Conason has written a piece assailing my column as the latest installment in the effort to destroy the Clintons for containing, he claims, “stunning errors” and “misinformation.... In fact, Conason identifies no errors or misinformation of any kind. His technique is to divert his audience’s attention away from the specific claims at issue, on which he has no ground to stand, and onto the amorphous question of the general virtues of the Clintons and the untrustworthiness of their enemies....”

Since Chait's goal was to clarify the specifics of the matter at hand, ie. his claims against the Clinton's and their family foundation, point by point Chait went through Conason's arguments. Jonathan Chait demolished them seriatim.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE “LOOKING THROUGH THE RIGHT END OF THE TELESCOPE” EDITION

POLITICO REPORT SUGGESTS SOME UNWINDING AT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IN AFTERMATH OF THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN INDUCED SCRUTINY

IF THIS IS TRUE — AND IT SHOWS A CONTINUING TREND FOR THE FOUNDATION — IT IS A VERY BIG DEAL FOR BOTH THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE CLINTON FAMILY FOUNDATION

According to a report that appeared in Politico, “A handful of deep-pocketed donors are reconsidering their gifts to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation amid mounting questions about how it’s spending their money and suggestions of influence peddling, according to donors and others familiar with the foundation’s fundraising. *** One major donor who contributed at least $500,000 to the foundation last year said a 2015 donation is less likely because of revelations about sloppy record-keeping and huge payments for travel and administrative costs....” (See “Clinton Foundation in campaign tailspin” by Kenneth P. Vogel, 4/30/15, Politico/ In Europe For Europe [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/clinton-foundation-bill-hillary-chelsea-117505.html]).

Furthermore, the article says “... [a]t least three other major donors also are re-evaluating whether to continue giving large donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with its fundraising. *** They say increasing financial pressures and escalating outside scrutiny have sparked sometimes intense internal debates about the priorities and future of a pioneering charitable vehicle that was supposed to cement the family’s legacy....”

HERE’S THE RUB
Mr. Vogel explains that “...[t]he uncertainty comes at the beginning of what was supposed to have been a four-month victory lap of sorts — starting with Bill and Chelsea Clinton’s trip to Africa with major donors this week. Next week’s splashy Clinton Global Initiative conference in Marrakesh was originally supposed to have been followed by a lavish reception and conference in Athens in June, and finally a September extravaganza in Manhattan featuring an appearance by Elton John. *** Instead, it’s turned into heartburn for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and for the foundation, which has been under increasing pressure to distance itself from its more controversial partners....”

However, what Vogel goes on to discuss is far more problematic than that. He details at great length the impact of the Hillary Clinton-Clinton Foundation scandals, both on the foundation and on the campaign.

The question arises — IS IT TRUE ? Kenneth Vogel made this assertion about his sources, “This story is based on interviews with more than a dozen donors, staffers and operatives who have interacted with the foundation or continue to do so. Taken together, their accounts portray an organization scrambling to address concerns about its budgeting, fundraising and donor-vetting while being buffeted by a raging political storm....” That is all well and good, but is it enough to actually conclude that such a large foundation and the campaign of the leading candidate for President of the United States in 2016 are both crumbling, or even showing significant structural cracks ? It’s far too early to tell. However, if Vogel digs in and finds more data in line with his analysis and conclusions — or even close to it, this is a very big deal.

Regardless of that, now that he has shown himself to be a pathfinder, Vogel can expect others to either join his quest, or follow his markers as the strike out on their own.

Meanwhile, the fault line that everybody should be watching is the one between the massive tectonic plates named “Bill” and “Hill.” After all, is the family business all about elective office anymore, or is it something bigger and more lasting. About that, “Bill” and “Hill” might disagree, somewhat.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE “AP POLL SHOWS MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DON’T SEE HILLARY AS HONEST" EDITION

THE BAD NEWS FOR HILLARY’S CAMPAIGN INCLUDES SOME UNFAVORABLE POLLING AND WORD THAT REPUBLICANS ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HILLARY LOSING IN THE PRIMARIES

HILLARY CLINTON, THE CANDIDATE, IS DESCRIBED AS A DEMOCRAT’S FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER, AN AMALGAM OF THE BAD TRAITS OF OTHER PEOPLE’S CANDIDACIES THAT SHE SHARES: JOHN KERRY’S FLIP-FLOPPING; BARACK OBAMA’S ARROGANCE; MITT ROMNEY’S WEALTH; JOE BIDEN’S GAFFES; AL GORE’S PERSONALITY; AND RICHARD NIXON’S PARANOIA AND TACTICS


The Associated Press is reporting that “Americans appear to be suspicious of Hillary Rodham Clinton's honesty, and even many Democrats are only lukewarm about her presidential candidacy, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.... Clinton's struggles to explain her email practices while in government, along with questions about the Clinton Foundation and Republican criticism of her openness, wealth and trustworthiness seem to have struck a nerve in the public's perception of the dominant Democratic figure in the 2016 campaign. In the survey, 61 percent said "honest" describes her only slightly well or not at all.... ( See “AP-GFK POLL: DOUBTS ABOUT CLINTON'S HONESTY AFTER EMAILS” by Lisa Lerer & Emily Swanson, 5/1/15, Associated Press [http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_POLL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-01-15-25-38]).

On the right, pundits are detecting the odor of Hillary’s weakness. A writer for the Neo-Con Weekly Standard sees it like this: “As Clinton scandals continue to mount and her credibility plummets, gleeful Republicans are quietly discussing what once seemed impossible: Hillary Clinton might not survive primary season, let alone make it all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue. *** That may well turn out to be the case. But it’s not because of the allegations about “Clinton cash” or deleted emails. Those are major political scandals, to be sure, but of a kind that a shameless Bill Clinton skated through easily during his own administration....” ( See “Frankenhillary – Bad at almost everything – winning” by Daniel Halper, 5/1/15, The Weekly Standard [http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/frankenhillary_935187.html?page=2]).

Daniel Halper goes on to quote veteran Democratic strategist Bob Schrum, who worked on the failed Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns. Schrum indicated that Hillary Clinton simply isn’t a very good candidate – “I’ve seen her and him in rooms, and she doesn’t have the whirr.... Your eyes aren’t constantly drawn to her the way they are to [Bill]....” On the contrary, your eyes seem to be drawn away; it’s as if Hillary’s campaign is a movie that you decide halfway through that you didn’t really want to see in the first place. Halper puts it this way, “As a candidate, she is the Democrats’ Frankenstein creature – a patched-together amalgam of all the worst traits of recent presidential campaigns and virtually none of their more winning attributes. Examples abound.

Unfortunately, Daniel Halper also clearly recognizes that “... [d]espite her problems, it’s worth stipulating that Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the prohibitive favorite to win the next presidential election. Yes, it’s true. She’s a proven fighter. She’ll appeal to a large segment of the American voting population that’s anxious to make history by electing the first woman president of the United States. She will likely raise more money than all her challengers — that’s something she’s exceptionally good at — and have a -billion-dollar war chest by the time the Republicans (who by then will be dead broke) even figure out who their nominee will be. And she’s at the helm of one of the most formidable political machines ever built. One that’s only growing stronger.”

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton will remain a “Frankenhillary” until she has won, lost or been trapped inside of a burning windmill, surrounded by a crowd with pitchforks and clubs.