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 POINTSFor 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" DUTIESAccording 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."