Posted on 04/27/2015 1:07:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
How do you know that a Democrat has found him or herself embroiled in a particularly devastating scandal? When the press begins to ask when the Republicans will begin “overplaying” their hands.
This weekend, you could feel the ground beginning to fall out from beneath Hillary Clinton’s supporters as members of the reporting and commentary classes began to express their doubts about the former secretary of state’s ethics.
Among some prominent members of the media who are generally not predisposed to dismiss the Democratic candidate in a presidential race, the Clinton Foundation’s shady fundraising practices and the former secretary’s lackadaisical attitude toward allegations of unethical behavior can no longer be dismissed.
On Sunday, The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus, who was underwhelmed and a little offended by the one-dimensional nature of Clinton’s campaign debut, asked a variety of uncomfortable questions regarding the effect of the Clinton Foundation’s suspect donations on the former first family.
“Did Clinton go soft on Algeria because it sent this check to her husband’s foundation?” she asked. “Did the foundation intentionally try to slip the check past the folks at State? I doubt it. Did Algeria give simply because its government was moved by the plight of the Haitian people? Pardon my cynicism.”
Which brings us to greed, and the Yiddish word, chazer. It means “pig,” but has a specific connotation of piggishness and gluttony. This is a chronic affliction of the Clintons, whether it comes to campaign fundraising (remember the Lincoln Bedroom?), compulsive speechifying (another six-figure check to speak at a public university?) or assiduous vacuuming up of foundation donations from donors of questionable character or motives.
Thus, as Hillary Clinton left the State Department — when she was clearly contemplating running for president — the newly renamed Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation could have done the prudent thing and kept the existing restrictions in place. Instead, the foundation quietly freed itself from the limitations, creating ethics questions that could have been avoided.
“The notion of the sloppiness and the greed,” Marcus said in an appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, “is simply inexcusable.”
She isn’t alone.
“Clinton’s crisis management team makes a big deal of the fact that ‘Clinton Cash’ author Peter Schweizer hasn’t proven a ‘quid pro quo.’ Really?” National Journal’s Ron Fournier asked. “It takes a pretty desperate and cynical campaign to set the bar of acceptable behavior at anything short of bribery.”
Fournier lamented that Clinton’s candidacy is likely to only reinforce the American public’s total loss of faith in the efficacy and goodwill of public servants.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that foreign companies and countries expected something in return for donating to the Clinton foundation rather than the countless other charities not connected to the U.S. presidency.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to know the Clintons violated ethics rules.
You don’t have to be a historian to know their ethical blind spot has decades-old roots.
Even ostensibly neutral reporters are firing up the air-raid siren over Clinton’s various indiscretions. Politico reporter Glenn Thrush noted on Sunday that the former secretary’s attempt to project herself as an unassuming figure on a humble listening tour is being weakened by the scandals that dog her.
“[T[hat effort is being undermined by a parallel storyline, and the well-executed New Hampshire trip was blown off basic cable by a barrage of stories Thursday documenting questionable practices by the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation — and illuminating once again what appeared to be the same old indifference to boundaries between charity, politics and wealth,” he wrote. “And several top Democrats told me they were worried, too, about the accumulation of stories — ‘at some point the weight just pulls everything down,’ one told me.”
These aren’t attempts to scuttle Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Quite the opposite, in fact. These and other commentators and reporters are sounding alarm bells precisely because they want to see this campaign succeed. The fear that the former secretary of state’s latest presidential bid is imploding even before it truly begins is growing prevalent. In concert with The New York Times editorial board virtually begging the Clintons to come out and address their family foundation’s apparent improprieties, it’s clear that the commentary class is panicking over the Democratic Party’s last, best hope to retain control of the White House in 2016.
People are delusional. Clintons always have a lot of chaos surrounding them. But Hillary is still a juggernaut with a 90% chance of being president.
Especially if we run a Dole, McCain, Bush or whomever believes it's their "turn".
“a 90% chance of being president.”
Only if she is running against a RINO. Cruz would not be afraid of being called a sexist and would bring the hammer down on Hillary.
I thought the press wasn't supposed to be biased or did I not get the memo?
“still a juggernaut with a 90% chance of being president.”
Of what?!
Her options while in prison will be limited!
-The chances of a non-RINO being nominated are minimal (30+ years)
-If Cruz is the nominee the media will go full Palin. He’ll be portrayed as rapist, serial killer, dumber than a rick. Every Hispanic stereotype available. They can do it and they know it.
-The GOP will tank it.
-They will get Cruz to RINOize, which may already be happening.
“And several top Democrats told me they were worried, too, about the accumulation of stories — ‘at some point the weight just pulls everything down,’ one told me.”
I just hate it when that happens! But I hope she stays in the game until it’s too late for any other RAT to take her place. Then, I hope she and Slick take the “Hitler Option,” and “off themselves.”
The difference is, Cruz knows how to fight back.
Don’t anyone help her. She’s doing just great all by herself...
Were you conscious during the 90s?
Congress will protect her. And the media. Expect their to be millions of scandals, but they don't hurt Clintons.
“it’s clear that the commentary class is panicking over the Democratic Party’s last, best hope to retain control of the White House in 2016.”
Oh, come on!
There are 8-10 Democrats more likely to be elected than Hillary.
“Hillary is still a juggernaut with a 90% chance of being president.”
Nick, with all due respect to you, you really need to put down the bong! The only thing that will put her in the White Mosque is the GOPE deciding for us all that the Republican’s “it’s my turn candidate” is Jethro Bush. I worry way more about the antics of Boner and Scrotum Chin than I do Hitlary.
Drama queens. They still have Joe Plagiarism, a Harvard virtual Indian, and the failed blue-state governor who tried to tax the rain. Not to mention Jabba the Gore.
I also hear that Hanoi John is tanned, rested and ready.
It took them years and years and years. Even those dimwits could not be that slow to catch on.
Something big has targeted the Clintons.
The chatterati are only following their instructions, as always.
The question is: Who is operating the strings to which these puppets are dancing? And who wants the Clintons destroyed?
Nah. She boozes like Tip O’Neal. I don’t think she has a 90 percent chance of not having another stroke during the primaries.
In fact, while a lot of people are betting that she will either win the presidency or go to prison, I still assert that by the end of 2016 she will far more likely be in a coffin or a nursing home.
This is all a big scam. In a few weeks, they’ll all be saying this is old news, that there is no there there, and that there is nothing new in the story. The press is just trying to re-negotiate their leverage with the Clintons after being made to look like lapdog fools-in-love in Iowa and at the UN. As soon as she let’s them back into the inner circle and gives them the access they want, this will all evaporate like smoke.
Hillary will never be president—she will never run—mark my words. Satan will need to find another pretty face to continue his anti-Christ New world Order. Warren? Brown? In 3 months no one will speak of Hillary Clinton.
I’m all for having Cruz carry our standard into battle. After McCain and Romney its intolerable to have another candidate who is unwilling to advocate for themselves.
But, it’s not at all clear it’s a winning strategy.
Goldwater was the most true-blue conservative GOP candidate of my life.
He was beat like a gong.
I still say it’s worth a try, but success may not result.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.