"New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation" --- "Peter Schweizer['s] 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation ... is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy."
Peter Schweizer writes the book --- Amy Chozick does a piece about the book in the New York Times --- Which is the bigger story -- Which is my lead ? And Why ?
Here's how Ms. Cozick starts off her piece in today's New York Times: "The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton. *** 'Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,' by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy. *** The book...asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return. *** “We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes...." ( See "New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation" by Amy Chozick, 4/19/15 [on page A-13 of 4-20-15 paper edition], NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html]).
CHOZICK'S ARTICLE IS NOT A REVIEW --- IT TIES THE BOOK INTO A NARRATIVE OF THE CLINTON'S FINANCIAL EMPIRE AND THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT
The Times article goes on to state that "... In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s 'Blood Feud,' about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s 'Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.' *** But 'Clinton Cash' is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book. *** Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes Mr. Paul and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have been briefed on the book’s findings, and its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates’ campaigns. *** Conservative “super PACs” plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton...." [[[ >>> NOTE <<< : One of the pro-Clinton commenters on the comments thread to the post immediately below this one mentioned exactly those bits of information about the book's author's association with Breitbart]]]Ms . Chozick also notes that "... Mr. Schweizer’s book will be released the same day former President Bill Clinton and the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, will host the Clinton Global Initiative gathering with donors in Morocco, the culmination of a foundation trip to several African nations. (A chapter in the book is titled 'Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa.' )...."
PRE-PUBLICATION FEATURE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES SHOWS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCLOSURES IN THE SCHWEITSER BOOK
Those who follow this blog know that NY Times writer Amy Chozick has been a lead or exclusive writer/reporter on several of the Hillary Clinton disclosures of late.The fact that the Times has decided to go with this report, which is more than a mere book review, shows that the editors there think that there is a big story behind the book, that their reporter Amy Chozick tells it well, and that that there probably will be big stories in the future coming out of "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich" by Peter Schweizer.
29 comments:
You neglected to mention that the NYTs and Fox are paying for the stories. Media Matters has already discredited it as bogus. But you keep trying. The Clintons have been dealing with these hit pieces for twenty years. Its the price they pay for being the most trusted leaders of the greatest nation in the world.
Benghazi-gate, Email-gate, Chiptotle-gate, too old-gate, too fat-gate and now this. Keep trying Repubs.
Clinton CNN double digit lead - that's what matters
RESPONSE AND QUERY: THE "NY TIMES AND FOX NEWS" EDITION
FOX, THE NEW YORK TIMES AND MEDIA MATTERS IN ONE COMMENT --- THIS HAS TO BE A JOKE
What is the significance of this: "You neglected to mention that the NYTs and Fox are paying for the stories...." ? What exactly are you getting at ?
"Media Matters" ! Seriously, I mean, SERIOUSLY !!! "... discredited as bogus... " by "Media Matters" ?
--- you really DO have a sense of humor --- "Media Matters has already discredited it as bogus...." That's a good one !
"Media Matters" is an original creation and charter member of the old-time Clinton body-guard of liars and media enforcers, it's now just one part of the Hillary Clinton brute force campaign for President --- the biggest BIG MONEY attempt to take over Washington ever mounted.
This comment is solely for the benefit of HRC Super Vols who read it:
Hillary Clinton has responded to a question about the smear campaign discussed in the blogger's post. She stated: "I will be subjected to all kinds of distractions and attacks, and I'm ready for that. It is worth noting that all Republicans can do is talk about me. I don't know what they'd talk about if I weren't in the race."
Clinton made that statement while meeting with real factory workers at a plant in NH and asking their thoughts on the economy and their job security. Clinton is focused on the issues that matter to Americans and all the Republicans can do is try to smear her.
The so-called book is a political hatchet job disguised as journalism. It will back fire as has every attack on Hillary Clinton.
This blogger's use of girl instead of woman is disparaging and sexist (as I pointed out) and it is a typical example of why the GOP will never get the women's vote.
UPDATE: THE "COLIN CAMPBELL -- WITH HIS FINGER ON THE PULSE OF NEWS" EDITION
BAY RIDGE LOCAL HERO COLIN CAMPBELL [ORIGINALLY FROM WAY OUT OF TOWN] SHOWS WHY HE DESERVES EVERYTHING THAT "THE BUSINESS INSIDER" IS PAYING HIM --- ALL THAT AND A LOT MORE
TODAY CAMPBELL WRITES ABOUT THE ORGANIZED AND FURIOUS HILLARY CLINTON COUNTER-ATTACK ON SCHWEIZER'S BOOK --- AS USUAL IT COMES DOWN TO --- ATTACK THE MESSENGER NOT THE MESSAGE
FUNNY, I WAS JUST TALKIN' 'BOUT "MEDIA MATTERS" MYSELF
Colin Campbell has jumped one step ahead of the story. His lead is about the orchestration of the Clinton Team's response to Peter Schweizer's not yet released "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich."
Here's what CC had to say in his report for the "Business Insider": "Supporters of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign just launched a counteroffensive against a conservative author who has an upcoming "blockbuster exposé" about her. *** Media Matters, a watchdog organization founded by staunch Clinton ally David Brock, published a long list on Monday containing what was described as reasons reporters should not trust Peter Schweizer or his new book, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich." (See "Hillary Clinton allies are going to war against a 'blockbuster exposé' promising juicy scoops about her finances" by Colin Campbell, 4/20/15, The Busines Insider/Politics [http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-allies-are-going-to-war-with-clinton-cash-2015-4]).
Campbell goes on to point out that Brock's group [Media Matters] published a massive, 7,000-word-plus fact-check of Schweizer's past work, which they said was filled with "numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that 'do not check out,' sources that 'do not exist,' and a basic failure to practice 'Journalism 101.'"
Then Campbell noted that another pro-Clinton media watchdog group, "Correct the Record," further claimed on Monday that Schweizer's book is "fiction" and "a political hatchet job masquerading as a book."
And he concluded the Clinton Team counter-offensive coverage with this material directly from the Hillary Clinton Campaign: "For its part, the Clinton campaign has dismissed the book's "absurd conspiracy theories." In a statement issued to The Times and other outlets, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon connected Schweizer's tome to dubious claims made about the Clintons in other books last summer, which were also attacked by groups like Media Matters. *** 'We always expected that while Hillary Clinton focused on helping everyday Americans get ahead, the Republicans would focus on attacks rather than ideas,' Fallon told Politico. 'It appears that this book is being used to aid this coordinated attack strategy, twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories. It will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons' record, and we know it will not be the last.'..."
It looks like Colin hit this Hillary Clinton slime operation nail right on it's head.
UPDATE: THE "BBC SEEMS INTERESTED" EDITION
BBC DOES IN DEPTH PIECE ABOUT CHOZICK, THE BOOK AND THE CLINTON TEAM'S REACTION
AND ALSO THIS: THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST AND FOX NEWS HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH PETER SCHWEIZER TO PURSUE SSTORY LINES FOUND IN HIS BOOK ABOUT THE CLINTONS
According to a BBC report, "... [w]e're in week two of Democrat Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and - thanks to a New York Times article about a yet-to-be-released book - her family's financial interests are under increased scrutiny...." The BBC reporter Anthony Zurcher goes on to say this: "he book in question is Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich - and it's fairly clear from the title exactly what conclusions author Peter Schweizer draws. *** He alleges that while Mrs Clinton was secretary of state, her family's non-profit organisation, the Clinton Foundation, was accepting donations from foreign interests and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was bringing in six-figure fees for speeches overseas in exchange for special considerations and favours...." (See "Will a 'feared' book damage Hillary's presidential hopes?" by Anthony Zurcher, 4/20/15, BBC News/ U.S. & Canada [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32358268]).
Ominously, here is something that suggests bigger things are afoot coming out of what Peter Schweizer has uncovered. Mr. Zurcher writes that: "According to Chozick... the Times - as well as the Washington Post and Fox News - have entered into 'exclusive agreements' with Schweizer to 'pursue the story lines found in the book'. If these news outlets can unearth details of a quid pro quo, Mrs Clinton's political outlook could darken quickly...."
Oh please Gale, you know that "exclusive agreement" means that the NYT's paid for the story. That is ethically disgraceful and you know it.
Hillary was vetted by the party a long time before entering the race. Don't be so naïve.
Looks like some HRC were tough on you today. Hope your not too hurt and sore.
RESPONSE: THE "I DIDN'T KNOW THAT" EDITION
YOUR INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES DIVINING ROD IS WORKING BETTER THAN MINE
The Democratic Party vets its candidates --- just who did it ? What materials did Hillary submit ?
This could be very interesting.
I think they missed a lot.
UPDATE: THE "GASOLINE ON THE FIRE" EDITION
WHITE HOUSE AND JOSH EARNEST TRY TO DAMP DOWN HILLARY'S PROBLEM WITH CLINTON FOUNDATION DONATIONS
NO INDICATION AS TO WHY THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BECOME INVOLVED IN HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN PROBLEM --- UNLESS IT MIGHT BE BECOMING A WHITE HOUSE PROBLEM BEFORE TOO LONG
While Hillary was in New Hampshire trying to find her way back to the White House, Obama's Press Secretary Josh Earnest was trying to protect Hillary's very copious rear from the press back at that White House.
Radio personality and blogger Jamie Dupree reports that "... [t]he White House on Monday tried to swat away allegations that donors to the Clinton Foundation received special treatment from the State Department while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State....
'I know there’s been a lot of accusations made about this, but not a lot of evidence,' said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.... 'The President continues to be extraordinarily proud of the work that Secretary Clinton did,' Earnest added during a regular briefing with reporters...." When the Press Secretary was pressed further to deny any appearance of wrongdoing, Earnest stuck to his guns and replied, "There’s nobody that’s marshaled any evidence to indicate this....” (See "White House denies favoritism for Clinton Foundation donors" by Jamie Dupree , 4/20/15, Atlanta Journal Constitution/ Jamie DuPree's Washington Insider [http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2015/04/20/white-house-denies-favoritism-for-clinton-foundation-donors/]).
There was not any explanation as to why Josh Earnest, a spokesperson for President Obama, decided to answer a question involving former Secretary of State Clinton. Unless, somebody at the White house thinks that this scandal will taint Obama as well as Clinton.
I understand the point that Hillary is doing well with pollsters, but the issue of the money that went to the Clinton foundation is going to put her down.
Amy Chozick is a longtime freindly Clinton reporter. She is not from The Daily Caller.
Its not just the Clinton foundation, its the family members like Hillarys brother who profited off every dissaster.
UPDATE & COMMENTARY: THE "WHAT HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CLINTON TEAM DIDN'T SAY" EDITION
FROM THE TOP TO PRETTY FAR DOWN THE FOOD CHAIN IN HILLARY CLINTONLAND, NOBODY SAID THAT THE SCHWEIZER CHARGES AREN'T TRUE --- ISN'T THAT ODD ?
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT WAS HILLARY HERSELF, JOHN PODESTA HER CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN OR THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE PREISDENT JOSH EARNEST --- ALL THROUGH DAY ONE OF THIS PHASE OF THE HILLARY CLINTON "BRIBERY"/ INFLUENCE PEDDLING SCANDAL, THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF ANYTHING THAT AMY CHOZICK SAID IN HER NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE
PODESTA SEEMS TO CONCEDE THAT SCHWEIZER'S BOOK IS FACTUALLY BASED
BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON ALSO SILENT ABOUT THE CLAIMS AND ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THEIR FAMILY FOUNDATION
Hillary Clinton's own words in her first comments to the media in New Hampshire following the news of the Schweizer book are very interesting. She said, "We are back into the political season and there are all kinds of distractions and attacks.... And I am ready for that. I know that that comes, unfortunately, with the territory. It is, I think, worth nothing that the Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don't know what they would be talk about if I wasn't in the race. But I am in the race and hopefully we will get onto the issues and I look forward to that...." (See "Clinton 'ready' for attacks in wake of book story" by Alexandra Jaffe and Dan Merica, 4/20/15, CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/hillary-clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-book/]).
Interestingly, the U.S. News contained a report on the same Hillary Clinton remarks (See "Campaigning Clinton defends family foundation from Republican charges of foreign favoritism" by Lisa Lerer & Ken Thomas, 4/20/15, US News/ Associated Press [http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/04/20/clinton-trying-to-recapture-that-old-new-hampshire-magic]). However, nothing in the article reflected the very strong title proclamation that Hillary Clinton had defended her family foundation --- the words were the same evasive remarks by Mrs. Clinton that were universally reported.
Speaking on the Charlie Rose Show, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta said that allegations made in Peter Schweizer's new book are "Nothing New'' when questioned by Al Hunt of Bllomberg News. Podesta didn't say any of the things that Schweizer and Chozick said weren't true ( See "Hillary's Campaign Chair John Podesta Dismisses Allegations By New Book As 'Nothing New' " by Huffington Staff [with video link of Podesta], 4/20/15, Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-cash-_n_7104770.html]); see also "PODESTA PLAYING DEFENSE: SCHWEIZER REPORTER FOR ‘AUGUST NEWS INSTITUTITION BREITBART.COM’ " by Ian Hanchett, 4/20/15, Breitbart News [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/04/20/podesta-playing-defense-schweizer-reporter-for-august-news-institutition-breitbart-com/]). On the contrary, in Podesta's interview with Al Hunt, there appeared to be a concession that much of what Peter Schweizer had put in his book was quite factual.
Even the Obama White House was roped into another Clinton controversy with questions on the Schweizer book at the Monday daily press briefing . Contrary to the title of the article by Jamie DuPree cited in one of my comments above, "White House denies favoritism for Clinton Foundation donors" the remarks universally attributed to Josh Earnest, including by Jamie Du Pree, did not contain any denial of the material reported in the New York Times article about Peter Schweizer's book.
Thus far I have been unable to find any response by the other Clintons involved in the Clinton Family Foundation, Bill Clinton or Chelsea Clinton (not Mezvinsky).
Hillary's back in NYC tomorrow! She will be attending the Women in the World Summit at Lincoln Center and is set to be honored by all the women leaders present. Hillary will be sharing the stage with a Catholic nun who has dedicated her life to helping young girls in Uganda along with Mary Robinson the former President of Ireland. Mary hails from Mayo (Up Mayo!) and is another leading Irish woman who supports Hillary. Yes, what is that old saying? We are judged by the company we keep. Hills keeps great company.
Bay Ridge Brooklyn Loves Hillary 2016
David Brock destroyed the smear campaign on Morning Joe. Time for Repugs to move on to next pseudo scandal. - WOMEN for Hillary
Yes Hillary is attending a conference and doing great in the polls.
Those canned lines were used in 2008 when she was asked about Iraq. If she keeps stonewalling the Clinton foundation money it will start to look worse than it really is.
Double digit leads matter to Hillary, but does anyone else care about paid polls?
568 days until Hillary Clinton is elected the first WOMAN president of America.
UPDATE: THE " 'DEFELECTION' BY DAVID BROCK" EDITION
COMPLETE "MORNING JOE" SEGMENT DOES NOT BUY INTO DAVID BROCK'S SPIEL
FULL DISCUSSION ON "MORNING JOE" TIED THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SCHWEIZER BOOK TO MISSING HILLARY E-MAILS
SPILL OVER TO CHRIS MATTHEWS SEGMENT FOCUSED ON PRESENT AND PAST PROBLEMS OF HILLARY CLINTON --- MIKA B EVEN MADE NEGATIVE COMPARISON BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON ELIZABETH WARREN
Things didn't go as well for David Brock and the Hillary Clinton effort to slime Peter Schweizer as the comment maker above might have you believe....
During an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” David Brock said this: "I think this is a political put-up job, and I can smell it from a mile away.... Yesterday it came out that The New York Times and Fox News were both chasing promotional deals with the author. The Times hyped the story yesterday, praised it, they withheld publicly available information about the author.... They noted that he runs something called the Government Accountability Initiative, but they don’t say that that’s funded by a prime funder of Ted Cruz’s super PAC, by Donor Trust, which is a Koch brothers passthrough, so it’s subsidized by Hillary Clinton’s enemies.” --- That was pretty much all that Brock had, certainly the best of it, and "Morning Joe" Scarbrough, Mika Brezinski and their panel pretty much were'nt taking very much of it (See "David Brock: Clinton book a political put-up job" with Mika & Joe[video link], 4/21/15, MSNBC/ "Morning Joe" [http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/david-brock--clinton-book-a-political-put-up-job-431282243633]).
Joe, Mika and a panel of journalists including MarK Halperin and Willie Geist pressed David Brock pretty completely. They pointed out that Brock had next to nothing to say about the substance of Schweizer's book about Hillary's time as Secretary of State and the questionable interactions between the Clinton family foundation, and people, governments and other entities having business with the U.S. State Department; and that questioning those dealings was a legitimate thing for Schweizer and the press to do .
Also Mika, Joe and the panel agreed that Schweizer, the Times, Washington Post and Fox are on perfectly sound ground with their exclusivity agreement. As Mark Halperin said, even though the background of the author is relevant, "...the facts matter more" than anything about the author.
The segement took an interesting turn when Mika and the panel questioned Brock about the connection between what was in Schweizer's book and what might have been in Hillary's deleted E-Mails. --- with Mika chiding "...Don't deflect..." as Brock dissembled (For a written report in "Politico" about this "Morning Joe" segment, see "David Brock goes on the warpath against anti-Clinton book" by Nick Gass, 4/21/15, Politico [http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/david-brock-warpath-against-anti-hillary-clinton-book-117178.html]).
The Brock segment pretty much flowed into a following segment with Chris Matthews. In that segement Matthews said that even though Hillary Clinton is shrugging off claims raised by a conservative writer that foreign entities received special favors from the State Department if they donated to the Clinton Foundation or hired Bill Clinton as a speaker, the issues raised in the NY Times report about that author's book flowed into the narrative of so many similar prior Clinton stories(See "Matthews: I don't think Clintons are guilty" with Mika & Joe [video link], 4/21/15, MSNBC/ "Morning Joe" [http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/matthews--i-dont-think-clintons-are-guilty-431292995514]). In the segment Mika made a negative comparison between how Hillary might act in a room of big banker donors and what we already knew about how Elizabeth Warren had handled such bankers.
Peter Schweizer the book's author who is also a frequent contributor to Breitbart news admits that's he cannot prove any of the unfounded allegations in the book. He states that he streamed them together from a timeline he created. As has been documented, Schweiser has a history of making unfounded claims, writing factual errors, and then having to make retractions.
K? Done. Good. Move on.
When hillary is asked about the hundreds of millions of dollars the foundation got from foreign governments she dosent deny it. She just says shes ready for these attacks.
The Clinton Foundation is a charity. And it is probably far more honest with its funds and distribution of those funds than our own Diocesan Catholic Charities is including the numerous relief funds they concoct every time the earth quakes in Haiti.
The people funding the book smearing the Clintons are wealthy fund raisers for Ted Cruz. Also, the Koch brothers are contributing tons of money to the funding of the book. This shows how underhanded and desperate the GOP is. Win an election fair and square. But that you cannot do!
RESPONSE: THE "CONCEPT OF COLLATERAL ATTACK" EDITION
The Clinton people are furiously going after Peter Schweizer and his, as yet unreleased, book "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich." To do so, they will do or say almost, anything in their attempt to see to it that Schweizer's factual claims about Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Family Foundation don't receive any traction.
Please notice that they don't actually go after the substance of the book. They go after the book's author and the business dealings that are behind the production of the book.
In a legal trial that would be called a "collateral attack"; and it would be subject to very strict rules of evidence.
One objection would be that the Clinton folks are making arguments based on facts not in evidence, another is that they're trying to introduce as facts things for which there is no foundation.
Another way of putting it is that Hillary's slime team is just making stuff up.
Most of the pro-Hillary comments above clearly fall into that category.
Is Marty in trouble?
We'll see.
Remember the name of John Ciampoli
UPDATE: THE " ERROL 'SERIOUS' ISSUES ABOUT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION" EDITION
WRITING FOR CNN, ERROL LOUIS SAYS THAT "QUESTIONS ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST INVOLVING BIG FOREIGN DONORS" AND THE CLINTON FAMILY FOUNDATION WILL "GET A THOROUGH AIRING" THANKS TO "A NEW BOOK ... BY PETER SCHWEIZER
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ALLEGED BY SCHWEIZER ARE SO SERIOUS --- CLINTON TEAM WILL TRY TO KEEP HER OUT OF TOWN AND AWAY FROM THE PRESS TO TALK TO "ORDINARY AMERICANS" FOR A WHILE
ERROL LEWIS RE-ASKS IF CANADA'S DONATION TO CLINTON FOUNDATION INFLUENCED THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S FAVORABLE REPORT ON THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
According to Errol Lewis, it comes down to this: "... My guess is that the issues raised by the book [by Peter Schweizer] will prompt Team Clinton to put its candidate on the road, where she can continue holding loosely scheduled, informal meetings with ordinary Americans -- the sorts of people more concerned about local jobs than whether some foreign government or company paid a big speaking fee to Bill Clinton in hopes of getting special treatment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. *** It's not that the alleged conflicts aren't potentially serious; as I recently noted in these pages, they are. According to The Wall Street Journal, in 2014 the Clinton Foundation 'received money from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Oman, among others. The donors included Canada's foreign affairs department, which is promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.' *** That's the same Keystone XL pipeline from Canada that the State Department all but endorsed, concluding after a five-part analysis that ran to 17,000 pages that the project's environmental impact would be minimal. President Obama vetoed a bill that would have allowed the pipeline to be built, but it's legitimate to ask whether the donation from Canada directly or indirectly influenced the State Department's analysis...." (See "Will new book dent Hillary Clinton's chances?" by Errol Louis, CNN Political Commentator, 4/21/15, CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/opinions/louis-hillary-clinton-book/]).
In the news today it is reported that that creepy Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy is under investigation by the police for violating Washington, D.C. gun laws over the weekend. He was prancing around with an AK-15 rifle pretending to shoot it. Trey Gowdy is the evil man that has unfairly targeted Hillary for the past three years. I hope he gets arrested.
To Galewyn Massey at 1:33 -
Errol Louis from NY1 is so obviously biased against Hillary that to quote him is absurd. Hillary supporters in Brooklyn have bombarded him directly with criticisms of his Inside City Hall vitriol against Hillary. Even Wise guy Al D'Amato comes off as more supportive of Hillary than Errol. We have repeatedly asked Inside City Hall to be more even-handed in its presidential discussions and to make sure Anthony Weiner is on more often. Errol Louis is angry that there will be no Democratic primary so he foolishly attacks Hillary. Additionally, his DN piece applauding DiBlasio for traveling around the country was laughed off as a joke by most other journalists. It is very clear who Errol Louis' personal bias is in just about every election he covers. He can't stand Dan Donovan and that was evident during the debate. In the 43AD race in Brooklyn he wants Geoffrey Davis and that came out on twitter. So we are not talking about a neutral reporter here.
Hillary Clinton future president is rockin' three inch heels on the campaign trail. She looks fab. Like a Boss.
The Hillary mum, she be lookin' old and dry, naught pleasin' to duh eye, mun. Lookin' like she naught been gitti' dah BIG BAMBOO, mun, fuh too, too long, mun.
DUH BIG BAMBOO MUN BE PLEASIN' TO YUH ALL, MUN
DUH BIG BAMBOO MUN, DUH BIG BAMBOO
UPDATE: THE "HILLARY CLINTON - LANNY DAVIS PROMISES, PROMISES..." EDITION
LANNY DAVIS TELLS BILL O'REILLY THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL RESPOND TO THE CHARGES IN PETER SCHWEIZER'S "CLINTON CASH" BOOK
According to a report on the Breitbart News blog, "Former White House Special Counsel to Bill Clinton, Lanny Davis declared 'you’ll see Hillary Clinton respond on this matter' when asked if the campaign would respond to 'Clinton Cash' on Tuesday’s 'O’Reilly Factor' on the Fox News Channel. *** Before the interview with Davis began, host Bill O’Reilly remarked that the Clintons have a ready defense for any criticism, blaming 'The Clinton haters,' and that 'they don’t admit mistakes.' (See "Lanny Davis -- "You'll see Hillary Clinton respond" to "Clinton Cash" ' by Dan Hanchett [with video link to Bill O'Reilly on Fox], 4/22/15, Breitbart News [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/04/22/lanny-davis-youll-see-hillary-clinton-respond-to-clinton-cash/]).
The artle went on to say this: "O'Reilly] then turned to the forthcoming book 'Clinton Cash,' while O’Reilly said 'the charges will have to be vetted,' he added, 'one bad sign for Hillary Clinton, is that a character assassin, David Brock, is now being used by her campaign to attack the credibility of the book. There are few Americans lower than Brock, who is a known hater and smear merchant. If the Clinton campaign is going to use people like Brock, major problems will develop.' And that Hillary needed to 'address' the controversies surrounding her.... [And] O’Reilly then asked Davis (who noted that he was appearing in his personal capacity, and not on behalf of the Clinton campaign) if Hillary would respond to the charges made against her, Davis responded 'they do respond, and they have to respond when there are questions raised, and you’ll see Hillary Clinton respond on this matter.'...”
Lanny Davis concluded by saying that Hillary “... would never trade the honor of being Secretary of State for any contribution.”
That certainly begs the issue. And that issue has been very much put into question as a result of the factual claims made in the Peter Schweizer's book, "Clinton Cash...."
What's a big bamboo Gale? Do tell. I'm dying to know. Tell us. Tell us.
Post a Comment