Thursday, April 23, 2015

Times' Editors say Hillary Clinton is Guilty of an "...Inexcusable Violation..." as Secretary of State --- Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine says "...[b]est case scenario ... The Clintons have been Disorganized and Greedy.... [And t]heir experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco"

 

Hillary Clinton's problems invovlving her entanglements and interactions with and on behalf of the Clinton family foundation, while she was duty-bound as Secretary of State for the Obama Administration, have moved from The NY Times news pages to the Times' editorial page

At the same time, Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine says that "....   [a]ll sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system, and where this all leads remains to be seen....  But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy...."  


And then Chait added this:  "The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles....   [And] the most positive interpretation [for the Clintons] is not exactly good...."



The current New York Times editorial has hammered Hillary Clinton and the budding Clinton campaign for President in 2016 with a series of combination shots.

THE TIMES' MAIN POINTS

For starters, the Times' editors signed off on the reporting done by its team of reporters;  then the Editorial Board uses these words to describe a failure of Hillary Clinton  in the performance of a key element of her duties while Secretary of State for President Obama  ---   Her "failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge"  to disclose all donors to the Clinton Foundation as a condition of her becoming Secretary of State  ( See "Candidate Clinton and the Foundation" by The NY Times Editorial Board, 4/23/15, NY Times/ nytimes.com[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/candidate-clinton-and-the-foundation.html?_r=1] [In 4/24/15 Paper Edition at page A 26, with the same headline] ).
Here is that section of the Times' Editorial:   "The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.   ***    Donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge...."                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
The Times editors also  admonished the Clintons that,  "...  [t]he increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House...."


CHAIT LOOKS AT BILL & HILL AS A POWER COUPLE WHO RAISE LOTS OF CASH FOR CHARITY, BUT THERE WAS A BIG PRICE FOR THAT IN OTHER AREAS OF THEIR "OVERLAPPING" DUTIES

According to Jonathan Chait,  "The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.  ***   The Washington Examiner reports, 'Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.'  ***   And Reuters reports, 'Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.'  ( See "The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency" by  Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/disastrous-clinton-post-presidency.html]).

Chait seems to buy into a lot of the Clinton slime team flack about "right wing conspiracy, when he says things like this:  "The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen...."  Nonetheless, Chait's narrative doesn't exculpate the Clintons by any means.  When looking at the facts reported by the MSM above, Chait concludes that "...  the most positive interpretation [for the Clintons] is not exactly good...."

Here is Chait's money shot:  "When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder....    And  [Wait for it  --  WAIT - FOR - IT ! ! ! ]  yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem...."

Chait concludes with this very much on the downlow:  "The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.   ***   The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well (WELL THAT IS CERTAINLY DISPUTABLE). Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco."

13 comments:

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE & BACKFILL: THE "ECHO & NARCISSUS CHAMBER" EDITION

WHEN IT COMES TO A WAR WITH "THE PRESS" --- NOBODY LIKES THE PRESS LIKE THE PRESS LIKES THE PRESS

ACCORDING TO POLITICO, HILLARY'S DISMISSAL OF "CLINTON CASH..." IS DEAD IN THE WATER BECAUSE OF THE CHAIT ARTICLE IN NEW YORK MAGAZINE


The media maven for Politico, Dylan Biers, wrote this earlier Thursday evening, "Right about the time Drudge Report splashed a link to Jonathan Chait's latest column [mentioned and cited in my main post above] across its homepage, I got a g-chat from a Democratic strategist: "This is a big deal," he wrote. "My gut tells me it elevates this story to something bigger and more needing of her response. I think this might take away the chance of this ordeal being seen as a partisan witch hunt." (See "Hillary's 'Clinton Cash' dismissal is dead in the water" by Dylan Byers, 4/23/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/hillary-clintons-dismissal-of-clinton-cash-is-dead-206040.html]).

In case you have been locked in the basement for a while, Byers tells you what it's all about like this: "The story in question is, of course, the revelation that Clinton Foundation donations and Clinton family speaking fees may have influenced Hillary Clinton's actions as Secretary of State -- which, if true, would be an extraordinary conflict of interest. In the last 24 hours, The New York Times, POLITICO, The Washington Post, Reuters, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal have all published reports on such possible connections, based off the forthcoming book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, 'Clinton Cash.'..."

IS POLITICO SAYING IT'S TIME FOR A DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER TO HILLARY CLINTON ? READ THIS AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK...

Byers concludes his article with these passages: "In the eyes of my Democratic strategist, this damning critique 'gives a VERY strong retort to the argument that the New Yorker said they were going to push... which is that this is a Fox News/Koch brothers-pushed story.' *** 'Now one of the biggest liberal voices at a big liberal mag is calling them out in the harshest terms possible makes that argument nul and void,' he wrote. *** Chait is more modest: 'It's really overestimating my influence to suggest something I wrote changes things,' he said Thursday. "Look, reporters are going to ask about this, I doubt the campaign's response will be shaped by my piece in any way." *** However, he later added: 'I'm sure they don't like having a liberal criticize them. It might, in some very marginal way, help open up more space for a Democratic challenger.' "

HMMMMMM !

Anonymous said...

Why isn't Governor cuomo floating his name?

Because he's the last of the "three men in a room" that will go down soon and he knows it. Dean and Shelly are too old and too white to go to jail. They're singing.

Anonymous said...

Did you read the Chait article?

What a strange piece of work it is.

He says Hillary's rollout is OK and the Republican book is probably conspiracy stuff, but that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been too successful, so Hillary has to be punished even though there's been no crime described or proven.

Chait is crazy, just crazy.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "CHELSEA JOINS MAMA" EDITION

NEWSWEEK TIES CHELSEA CLINTON TO HILLARY'S EFFORTS TO DISTRACT AND DEFLECT FROM THE GROWING CLINTON FOUNDATION SCANDAL

BOTH FEMALE CLINTONS RETREATED TO WOMEN'S TALK TO AVOID SUBSTANTIAL AND INCREASING DISCLOSURES ABOUT THE BILL, HILLARY AND CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION

Nina Burleigh's article in Newswweek started out tame enough for the Clintons, mother and daughter --- "On a day when the New York Times published an investigation into the Clintons’ charities, Chelsea and Hillary Rodham Clinton used separate platforms to ignore the critical story and instead spoke out for womens rights...." (See "Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Ignore Donation Controversy" by Nina Burleigh, 4/24/15, Newsweek [http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-and-chelsea-ignore-donation-controversy-324698]).

Then Burleigh's story took a more critical turn on Hillary Clinton, like this: "The story, dealing with a Ukrainian donor to the foundation, was spurred by a soon-to-be-released book from a conservative author, Peter Schweitzer, who has allowed various news organization first access to his book. (Newsweek is not one of them.) The arrangement between the author and the Times is unusual and the story was well short of proving any wrongdoing on the Clintons or their global charities. *** Still, as has been the case so many times before, many wondered how the former Secretary of State would address this latest set of questions. She used a weather-tested technique: She ignored the controversy...."

For her part in the planned evasion, "... Chelsea spoke at a breakfast with 100 members of the Council on Foreign Relations, billed as “Women’s Rights as Human Rights: the Path to Full Participation....”

When ABC News’s Juju Chang asked her about the propriety of the Clinton Foundation accepting large donations from Saudi Arabia and other nations that don’t grant equal rights for women, Chelsea started with a pretty pat answer about the family foundation. That's when Nina Burliegh got a little snarky with the Clinton welp. "... When asked about the abysmal women’s rights records of donor nations to the foundation, she noted that American shortcomings when it comes to gender equity. She noted that many U.S. states still have laws on the books that permit children to get married - albeit with parental consent. In Massachusetts a 12-year-old girl can wed with parental consent and a judge’s approval although it was hard to see what the home state of the Kennedys, Elizabeth Warren and John Kerry really had to do with Saudi Arabia let alone the kingdom’s contributions to the Clinton charities while Hillary is secretary of state...."

Then Burleigh hammerd Chelsea Clinton again, with this: "When an executive with Human Rights Watch asked Chelsea how pressure might be brought to bear on the Saudis to allow women to participate in sports and have more freedom in public spaces, Chelsea once again turned to the U.S. 'The United States is one of only nine countries around the world not to have paid leave for new mothers of infants,” she replied. 'That’s shameful.' ”

Burleigh finished her piece with this: "... [H]ours after the Hillary and Chelsea had spoken, the Clinton Foundation answered questions about one of its entities, involving a Canadian businessman named Frank Giustra, who has contributed tens of millions to the Foundation. Giustra’s donations to the philanthropy are public, but his activities with a Canadian branch of the Clinton Foundation set up for him are not - ensuring that scandal hunters and their messengers in the media will be familiarizing themselves with the intricacies of Canadian tax law."

Welcome to the big leagues, Chelsea !

Anonymous said...

A great man once said to me, "this isnt the begining of the end, its the end of the begining", or something like that.

Anonymous said...

this makes the lufthansa heist look like small potatos

Anonymous said...

hillary strikes a deal so the russians can corner the market on uranium and ship it iran so they can eliminate israel. ya think the press will follow up on that? the church lady said hillary is getting an award from the irish ass kissers league so none of this matters.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUP GOES AFTER HILLARY OVER THE CLINTON FOUNDATION" EDITION

COMMON CAUSE ASKS FOR AND AUDIT OF THE CLINTON FAMILY FOUNDATION

COMMON CAUSE SAYS THERE'S TOO MUCH "DARK MONEY" IN OUR ELECTIONS -- FOUNDATIONS LIKE THE CLINTON FOUNDATION PROVIDE ANOTHER WAY TO GAIN ACCESS AND CURRY FAVOR FROM [A CANDIDATE LIKE HILLARY CLINTON] WITHOUT THE PUBLIC KNOWING ABOUT IT... CREATING A CLEAR RISK OF UNDUE INFLUENCE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST....

Thw Washington Examiner reports, "The financial issues plaguing Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign have become too much even for liberal groups, and now Common Cause is calling for an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation. *** Amid suggestions that foreign governments donated to the foundation in hopes of getting special treatment from President Obama's State Department when Clinton was his top diplomat, the group on Friday said a "thorough review" is needed...." (See "Unraveling: Liberal Common Cause demands Clinton Foundation, Hillary audit" by Paul Bedard, 4/24/15, The Washington Examiner [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/unraveling-liberal-common-cause-demands-clinton-foundation-hillary-audit/article/2563565]).

The article by Paul Bedard goes on to note, "Six years ago, at Mrs. Clinton's confirmation hearing for her appointment as secretary of state, then-Sen. Dick Lugar observed that 'that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.' He was right, and his remarks remain relevant today as Mrs. Clinton seeks the presidency," said Common Cause President Miles Rapoport.

The head of Common Cause also said this: "There already is too much 'dark money' in our elections, in the form of spending by supposedly independent nonprofit groups that are not required to disclose their donors and operate as sort of shadow campaigns.... The Clinton Foundation and any other foundations tied to a candidate or his or her family provide one more way for potential donors to gain access and curry favor from candidates — without the public knowing about it. That lack of transparency creates a clear risk of undue influence and conflicts of interest...."

Though Mrs. Clinton has severed ties with the Clinton Foundation, her husband and daughter remain active in its operations.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON NOW SAYS --- HE HAS NO TIME FOR CLINTON QUESTIONS" EDITION

AFTER TAKING A MOMENT TO REMIND REPORTERS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO SIMILAR BOOKS BY "CONSERVATIVE AUTHORS" --- JOSH EARNEST INDICATED HE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON'S COMPLIANCE WITH WHITE HOUSE RULES AND AGREEMENTS

Breitbart News started by saying that "... [a] New York Times story, prompted by information gathered by Schweizer, questioned why many foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation were secret, although the Obama administration and the Clintons agreed to make those donations public in a memo. " Breitbart then reported that Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, when questioned by reporters during the White House press briefing today, 'In terms of compliance with the memorandum of understanding, I’d refer you to the State Department, or to Secretary Clinton’s team who I’m sure would happy to talk to you about this.' ..." (See "WHITE HOUSE DODGES ‘CLINTON CASH’ QUESTIONS, ATTACKS ‘CONSERVATIVE AUTHORS’" by Charlie Spierling, 4/24/15, Breitbart News [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/24/white-house-dodges-clinton-cash-questions-attacks-conservative-authors/]).

The Breitbart report went on to note that "... Earnest indicated that he didn’t have time to address [ ] accusations brought against Obama’s former Secretary of State. *** 'My point is, right now that is happening to Secretary Clinton, and there is a spokesperson that Secretary Clinton has hired that can answer these questions,' Earnest said.

Galewyn Massey said...

EDITORIAL UPGRADE: THE "HOW FAST IS HILLARY AGING BEFORE OUR EYES" EDITION

The following comment was placed on the comments thread to my Saturday, March 28, 2015 post, "Is the U.S. Military preparing for martial law in “exercises” within certain “hostile” American states this summer ?"

Since I'd hate for everybody to miss this gem, I copied it to this location:

"Anonymous said...
As you know Presidents age while in office big time
Can you imagine what Mrs Clinton will look like in 8 years if she became president?
April 24, 2015 at 12:50 PM

Simply brilliant !

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Eight years? Hillary Clinton looks like a a stretch of bad road right now

Galewyn Massey said...

BACKFILL: THE "HILLARY AND HAITI --- ANOTHER CLINTON FOUNDATION PROBLEM FOR THE FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE" EDITION

OR "THIS IS THE BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON VERSION OF "TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS" EDITION

FOX NEWS BLASTS BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON'S CHARITY OVER HANDLING OF AFTERMATH OF THE EARTHQUAKE IN HAITI --- RELATIONSHIP WITH BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON NECESSARY TO GET "LUCRATIVE" REBUILDING CONTRACT --- HAITIANS' OWN PRIORITIES IGNORED
CLINTON FOUNDATION RESPONSE TO HAITIAN EATHQUAKE DISASTER HELPED TO ENRICH THE CLINTONS --- DID VERY LITTLE ON THE GROUND FOR WRETCHED HAITIANS

According to a report in the Weekly Standard, "Another bombshell set to drop on the growing scandal surrounding the Clintons. Fox News now learning about a direct connection between money flowing to the Clinton Foundation and the effort to rebuild a devastated Haiti in 2010.... [B]oth Hillary and Bill Clinton were on the ground in Haiti just days after that massive earthquake rocked that country. But the author of Clinton Cash is now claiming that to get one of the lucrative contracts to rebuild the country, you just had to have a 'relationship with the Clintons,' host Martha MacCallum added...." (See "Report: 'Relationship With the Clintons' Requirement for Getting Lucrative Contract to Rebuild Haiti" by Daniel Halper, 4/24/15, The Weekly Standard [https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-relationship-clintons-requirement-getting-lucrative-contract-rebuild-haiti_928980.html] [With video link to Fox News]).

According to Fox's own report, "... [o]n January 12, 2010 Haiti suffered a devastating earthquake. More than 200,000 died and over 100,000 buildings and homes were destroyed. *** Within four days, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived to survey the damage. *** [Hillary] Clinton assured the Haitian people that,” the United States is a friend, partner, and a supporter.” *** The government of Haiti set up the IHRC - the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission - to coordinate the nation’s recovery. *** Former president Bill Clinton was named co-chair of that committee.... What quickly became apparent to many people was that if you …wanted to do business in Haiti, you had to have relationships with a Clinton. That was absolutely key...." (See Fox News own report on Bret Baier's program: "Pay to Play in Haiti? Bret Baier Sits Down With 'Clinton Cash' Author" As seen on Fox News, 4/24/15, Fox News [http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/24/pay-play-haiti-bret-baier-reports-clinton-cash]; see also "REPORT: COMPANIES WITH TIES TO CLINTONS PROFITED AFTER HAITI QUAKE" by Ian Hanchett, 4/24/15, Breitbart News [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/04/24/report-companies-with-ties-to-clintons-profited-after-haiti-quake/]).

Bret Baier the Fox News Host that presented the report says that, , according to Peter Schweizer, a company named Digicel, that made over $50 million in revenue in Haiti, off something called the Haitian Mobile Money Initiative, “is run by Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien, who set up lucrative speeches for Bill Clinton, as well as donating millions of his own money to the Clinton Foundation.” Baier then continued, “one company that got a rare gold permit was VCS Mining, which didn’t actually have much mining experience, but would soon have Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, on its board.” And that the anchor tenant of the Caracol Industrial Park, a large development funded by the IHRC “is a Korean manufacturer, which supplies to major US retailers, who also happen to be big Clinton supporters...."

Lastly Bret Baier reported that Hillary Clinton's State Department had promised 65,000 jobs in Haiti, however to date, only 5,000 have been delivered.

Galewyn Massey said...

UPDATE: THE "IT JUST WON'T STOP FOR HILLARY CLINTON --- THE NPR" EDITION

NPR REPORTS: HILLARY CLINTON CONTINUES TO FACE BAD HEADLINES AND ADDED QUESTIONS ABOUT HER FAMILY FOUNDATION --- AT THE SAME TIME SHE WILL BE ANSWERING CONGRESSIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HER METHOD OF MAINTAINING PUBLIC & PRIVATE E-MAILS AND BENGHAZI

IN THE FACE OF A RISING TIDE OF QUESTIONS, CRITICISMS AND NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CLINTON FAMILY FOUNDATION IN THE PRESS, THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN HAS DECLINED TO COMMENT ON THE COVERAGE

NPR DESCRIBES RESPONSE OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AS A "...CLASSIC POLITICAL RAPID RESPONSE — QUESTION THE SOURCE, BLAME THE OPPOSITION

National Public Radio's coverage of the Hillary Clinton family foundation scandal features a quote from the NY Times lead reporter on the story, Jo Becker, "...[W]hat the story really underscores are the special challenges when you have a foundation that's raising money from foreign interests, that couldn't contribute to an American political campaign, by the way, but can contribute to these kinds of foundations...." Then NPR pointed out that "... The Clinton campaign declined to comment...."(See "Clinton Faces Bad Headlines And More Questions Of Scandal" by Tamara Keith, 4/24/15, NPR/It's All Politics [http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/24/401830417/clinton-faces-bad-headlines-and-more-questions-of-scandal]).

After having reported the Gowdy Committee wants to question Hillary Clinton during the week of May 18th, it appears that her counsel has agreed to her appearance, and also that week is the time of a major Hillary campaign kickoff event; Tamara Keith's article ends with these remarks: "Th[e] Benghazi committee hearing will deal mostly with her use of a private e-mail server for public business. Gowdy released 136 likely questions; eight of them are about Benghazi. *** Once Gowdy is satisfied he has all the documents, he plans to call a second hearing where the committee can ask Clinton about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. *** That means while Clinton tries to campaign for one job on Pennsylvania Avenue, she is going to be facing questions from the other side [of Pennsylvania Avenue or the GOP or both] for quite some time."