I was reading an article by Eleanor Clift in The Beast this morning in which she starts out by writing about Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash. From that article:
It’s a mistake for the Clinton campaign to write off conservative author Peter Schweizer as a right-wing hack. It won’t work, and it’s not true. If he were as off-base as the campaign and its allies portray him, would a high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him? And would Common Cause, the gold standard for good-government groups, which is currently chaired by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, be calling for an independent review that would be made public of all large donations to the Clinton Foundation?
She accurately describes the classic Clinton response to the story:
The Clintons have a standard template for pushing back, and they’re going to use it to make questions about their finances seem part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, but character assassination only goes so far. It may work for a while, but if the data in Schweizer’s upcoming book, Clinton Cash, survives the vetting it will get from the mainstream media, Clinton will have to clean up her act. Aside from actual wrongdoing, and there’s no evidence of that, this is about the appearance of conflicts of interest, and in politics, appearances are everything.
But then she goes into Clinton Protection Mode and makes this assertion:
While no one is alleging illegality, there are legitimate questions about appearances that if Clinton does not adequately address will have the effect of further weakening citizens’ faith in their government, and in her capacity as a leader.
We’re seeing this over and over and over. “There is no proof they did anything wrong.”
Yes there is. There’s plenty of proof.
1. Hillary violated the agreement she made with the Obama administration.
The Clinton Foundation admitted Thursday that a 2010 donation from the Algerian government was not properly approved under the guidelines the Obama administration put in place with the foundation when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009.
The “unsolicited” $500,000 donation was made by the Embassy of Algeria “immediately following the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010,” the Clinton foundation said in an unsigned statement.
“As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for earthquake relief, the entire amount of Algeria’s contribution was distributed as aid in Haiti,” the statement said. “This donation was disclosed publicly on the Clinton Foundation website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed.”
In 2008, before Hillary Clinton became Obama’s secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation and the Obama administration signed an agreement that outlined how the foundation would deal with conflict of interest questions but still be allowed to continue its philanthropic work.
2. The Clinton Foundation filed false IRS returns:
The Clinton Foundation’s acting chief executive admitted on Sunday that the charity had made mistakes on how it listed government donors on its tax returns and said it was working to make sure it does not happen in the future.
The non-profit foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence.
After a Reuters review found errors in how the foundation reported government donors on its taxes, the charity said last week it would refile at least five annual tax returns.
“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,” Clinton Foundation acting Chief Executive Officer Maura Pally said in a statement.
One year, maybe two, is a mistake. Five is a cover-up.
3. The Clinton Foundation took millions of dollars in donations from foreign nations while Hillary eas Secretary of State:
The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
This is, at the bare minimum, a conflict of interest. Many believe it’s far more than that.
4. More than anything else, the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for the Clintons:
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
5. The Clinton Foundation will continue to take foreign money while Hillary campaigns for President:
The board of the Clinton Foundation said Wednesday night that it will continue accepting donations from foreign governments, but only from six nations, a move that appears aimed at insulating Hillary Rodham Clinton from controversies over the charity’s reliance on millions of dollars from abroad as she ramps up her presidential campaign.
Clinton, who resigned from the foundation’s board last week, has faced mounting criticism over the charity’s ties to foreign governments.
There is no escape from the conflict of interest.
6. It is virtually certain that she violated the Federal Records Act:
Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.
“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
Conveniently, Hillary destroyed the emails on her private server and won’t allow anyone to examine it. Now at least we know why she destroyed it.
According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, New York State law stipulates that any speaking fees Bill Clinton accepts are also Hillary’s fees as well. That means she did indeed profit from her decisions.
And here’s something critical: Bill Clinton pumped up Nazarbayev despite his record of alleged human rights violations and rigged elections. That set the stage for the approval of the deal. The Russians wanted to buy Uranium One and needed State Department approval. They got that approval, after tens of millions were donated to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One’s major shareholders.
The Clinton Foundation did not report those donations.
Mistake my ass.
In what can only be described as an outburst of galactic hypocrisy, Hillary promises to get unaccountable money out of politics.
The Clintons are as corrupt as can be imagined. We’ll be visiting the Clinton Foundation taking money from countries who abuse women and hang gays later. When they tell you there’s no smoking gun, remember that John Allen Muhammad was convicted on less. There was no “direct evidence” he killed anyone either.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Nothing to see here. Let’s just cover it up and move along until it can be called “old news”.
From Fox News:
Clinton Foundation addresses disclosure of $31M Canadian donation, re-filing IRS revenue forms
Pardon me, but so what? The Clinton Foundation is not a campaign organization, any more than the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Listen closely to the related FOX News video, beginning at the 1:43 mark:
So, there you have it: It doesn’t matter whether there’s a shred of evidence or not, because there are lots of stories—and FOX News is going to tell them.
Unbelievable. They state their approach to “the news” right out in the open, and nobody even blinks. Nobody even understands what they just said. I’m not sure they even understand what they just said themselves, it’s so central to the FOX News corporate culture: Proof doesn’t matter. Lots of accusations are what matter.
@Greg:
You do realize how much of a hyperpartisan hack you are, right?
I seem to recall the EXACT same, “there is no evidence” propaganda from the Clinton machine, and Willie lied on national TV when he said, “I did not have sex with that wan…Miss Lewinski..” until the DNA evidence on Miss Lewinski’s dress turned up.
The illegal – and now destroyed – hard drive from Hillary’s server doesn’t make you at all suspicious, I bet, seeing as how much of a leftwing syncophant you are.
The Clinton’s are completely untrustworthy, and only fools and extremist leftist thronesniffers think the crooks should be anywhere but in prison where they belong.
Only a fool continues to believe sources that constantly make claims and accusations without ever producing a shred of evidence to back them up. The woman on the FOX News video asserted that evidence doesn’t matter, that it’s the number of stories that matter.
Welcome to Propaganda Land, also known as The Wonderful World of FOX.
@Greg: Oh you’re referring to M$NBC, CNN, The Daily Beast, WaPo, HuffPo, Newsvine…..I would go on and on and on and on…….. You are one sick delusional puppy. You come up with total flawed arguments. They are systematically destroyed and you keep on defending them with the same lies and hyperbole. Why the heck we even bother with you is beyond me. You can’t fix stupid and we should simply stop trying to fix you.
@Greg: How does it feel living in that fantasy world in your shoe box?
I’m not the one living in a right wing propaganda construct. I understand perfectly well what the FOX talking heads just said. I also understand perfectly well what it means. It should be a genuinely shocking statement, to anyone who thinks they’ve been watching a factual presentation of the news.
This graphic compares the Clinton Foundation with Doctors Without Borders as regards Grants, Travel expenses, Conferences and Compensations.
As anyone can see, the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund.
Almost all its money goes to ”OTHER,” Compensation of officers (Hillary, Bill and Chelsea) and Travel costs.
Doctors Without Border (which really sends lots of doctors all over the planet) does all that with a mere 1% of its budget!
The Clinton Foundation was more generous to conference organizers than the poor……spending $9 million on conferences, conventions and meetings, compared to $8.9 million in aid!
Compare that to World Vision, which while spending $729 million on grants spent only on $593,000 on only conferences and meetings!
Just for all the money regular folk donated for Haiti through the Clinton Foundation (almost none went to Haiti!) this ”charity” ought to be on the ”Do NOT Donate” list of charities with too high an overhead to be worthwhile.
Yes, Republican critics say this because Democrat sycophants have no morals or standards and are willing to overlook any transgression (up to and including murder) for the hope of getting some freebies from the American taxpayer.
@Greg:
As I stated above, this would be the typical left wing sycophantic response. Oh, sure, simply because Bush launched a war (based on credible intelligence) against Iraq, there can be no doubt that this was because he wanted to avenge a threat to his Daddy and so he and Cheney could reap war profits; though there has not yet been one shred of evidence to support it, this is still repeated. However, take a foundation run by two of the most politically corrupt people we have seen in our lifetime, add huge contributions from nefarious governments, add simultaneous favorable (and irrational) treatment from the State Department headed by Hillary and, well, what the hell are YOU looking at? How can you possibly have suspicion? Yeah, Greg…. it’s Fox’s fault.
That would be the Clinton’s, Greg. So, why do you believe them? Are you stating YOU are a fool (confirming the suspicions of many)? What have the Fox unfounded claims and accusations? List them, please.
Did the Clinton Foundation take in donations from the investors wanting to buy US uranium? Did Hillary block the sale of this uranium? Was this purchase, by any stretch of the imagination, in any way good for the United States?
As President, no doubt Hillary would sell the launch codes for our ICBMs for a couple million dollars or overnight stays for ISIS on one of our aircraft carriers for donations. She and Bill are, and always have been, scum. And now, by adding Chelsea to their foundation, they have sunk any of HER political ambitions because she now has to explain HER association with illegal contributions, corruption and graft. Ha, ha, ha. Good riddance to that legacy.
“181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary’s State Department”
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Clinton-foundation-donors-State
@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, you accused Bush of lying to America with NO proof, you accused Romney of NOT filing tax returns with NO proof, Obama tells America that you can keep your health insurance and/or doctor a clear lie and you can’t admit it. YOU have NO credibility so stop your quacking moron!!
Good one, DrJ. There is no doubt that the foundation is a Clinton personal slush fund. As a “fund” it was launched into the stratosphere by the Clinton/Juistra deal which became the blueprint for Bill’s “deals.”
As former President, Bill used his “formerness” better than any other President in history to amass a fortune, and he’s used the foundation as pretext. He is absolutely one of the world’s best glad-handers. He can open doors for deal makers like Guistra, with dictators everywhere — Nursultan Nazarbayev is just one example, and in return the dictator gets acclaim and pats on the back from Clinton in his own country. Clinton is really good at this. Some I’ve known who “dealt” with him and flew him around when he was still a governor, told the same repetitive story, and not surprisingly every story included “other women”. Apparently, flights to LA and LV were regular and had to have added benefits. These were anecdotal, obviously, but as time passed, it was evident that bad habits continued into the White House and obviously beyond, and many eventually surfaced. Nothing new.
The foundation’s excusers, claim it does good work — no, it funnels cash into it’s pockets and the only “good” work it pretends to do is collect cash from other foundations/nations/individuals with a small % going to where the rubber meets the road. Haiti is a perfect example.
Access is for sale and always has been, but the Clintons have brought it a refinement that has elevated it to a fine art.
BTW, Giustra’s current big disclaimer on the “Kazakh” deal was that he and Bill flew into Almaty, Kazakhstan, on 2 different planes. No shit? Well, that explains it all then. Move along.
You’ve got no evidence of wrongdoing. What you’ve got are your propaganda outlets shifting the focus of their rumor and scandal mongering from the Obama administration back to the Clintons. I guess once again that’s all republicans really have in the way of a campaign strategy. They certainly can’t run on their record of accomplishments. Nor do they have anything to offer in the way of policies, principles, or proposals that would better the lot of the average American voter.
The hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze me. Suddenly the mere fact that money given to a foundation has come from donors who also have an interest in influencing politics is prima facie evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement, where the money is assumed to be payment for favors until proven otherwise.
This from the people who claimed the Citizens United decision was all about Freedom of Speech.
@Greg: Yeah, Greg, there is wrongdoing. She signed an agreement not to accept these contributions. While that is but one, that is wrongdoing. She’s a crook and a liar.
@Bill, #15:
They’re not donations to Hillary Clinton. They’re not donations to Hillary Clinton’s political campaign. They’re not donations to anybody’s campaign. They’re donations intended to support specific causes and agendas that the donors believe in.
I believe former Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell is in prison for far less than what we have here with the Clinton’s. Yet we still have those who won’t see the irony.
So little of the money was actually spent on charitable work with the Clinton foundation and a far greater amount on travel and administration, it appears to be a poor way to help people, unless your name IS Clinton.
@Greg:
Has anyone stated the donations were to her campaign? That has not been the question, as you well know.
She signed an agreement to stop taking donations to their little ATM, the Clinton Foundation, from foreign governments, not to mention nefarious entities wishing to help the Russians take control of a a fifth of our uranium. Obviously, she and the Foundation violated this agreement. Of course, had she not deleted 30,000 of her emails (actually, the taxpayer’s emails) before any outside eyes had the opportunity to see and evaluate them, this could all be cleared up beyond any shadow of a conflict of interest doubt, couldn’t it?
You know, when the media ginned up the “Bridgegate” scandal, I WANTED a thorough investigation, in case Christie wound up being a candidate. I did NOT want it swept under the rug and was in no way motivated to make up silly and weak excuses for any misbehavior or corruption. I don’t WANT a corrupt individual as a representative or leader.
Why are so many leftists like yourself, wanting any suspicion, accusation, clear indication or proven scandal weakly explained away, covered up or ignored altogether? Why do you accept liars and corruption? I don’t care what they promise to give me (take note that those promises are usually lies), I want honest representation. Bill and Hillary have a historic legacy of being the exact opposite. Why do you SEEK, much less accept, that sort of trash?
Hillary violated the law when she used a private, secret email server. She violated the law when she deleted them without government access. She violated the law when she allowed the Foundation to keep accepting contributions (or even those transparent half-million dollar speaking arrangements). The Clinton’s never worry about the appearance of a conflict of interest because they know (Gruber 101) that there are enough ignorant liberals to continue to support their crooked enterprises.
There is PLENTY evidence, Greg, and anyone that refuses to see it is, well, simply purposely stupid.
@Bill,
The Clinton Foundation is not the Clintons’ “little ATM.” It’s a social and environmental action organization. (Which is no doubt one reason why the right loves to hate it.) It’s supported by donations, 88 percent of which go directly to the programs the Clinton Foundation sponsors. (Coincidentally, that’s the same percentage of received donations that actually go to the causes that Goodwill Industries supports.)
PLENTY of evidence. Fine. So let’s have another investigation. Roll that evidence out! And while you’re at it, name the laws that have been violated. I haven’t heard anybody do that yet. As usual, people are just running around hysterically, waving their arms and pointing, as if they actually knew something.
This really is much like the Clinton e-mail scandal. Everybody on the right is shocked and scandalized that Clinton used a private e-mail server, but they can’t cite any law that was broken. That’s because no law actually was broken. At worst, you’ve got failure to follow a new protocol concerning e-mail that didn’t even exist up until then. Or like Benghazi. You’re all convinced some dark secret has been covered up. Everybody on the right knows that. The fact that month upon month of intensive investigations found no evidence of it whatsoever only proves how serious the cover up is.
The evidentiary requirements necessary for a story to be believed would appear to be rather low: TX Gov Orders State Guard to Monitor Possible Military Takeover of Texas
@Greg: Or like slimy Harry accusing Romney of not filing taxes on the floor of the Senate?? Or like you accusing Bush of lying about WMD!! Still waiting for any proof you might have Greggie!! Hilldabeast and her deceptions are just coming to the forefront!! Clearly Slick and her have extorted millions from foreign investors for favors here in the US. Just hang on Greggie!! Also the Benghazi books are far from closed as you know but fail to admit. Just like you fail to admit Obola lied to America when he said you can keep your health insurance and/or doctor “period”!!
@Greg:
Yes, it is. Read the articles and look at the figures. They live a lavish life style by siphoning off the funds of the Foundation while they “do good”.
No doubt, some of these tit-for-tat deals WILL be investigated. The problem is, Greg, is that there ARE laws and rules in place to eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest in government activities and Hillary trampled them all…. because money is more important than propriety. She signed an agreement NOT to accept any of these contributions by the Foundation and did it anyway. She and Bill got on the payroll of other governmental entities and foreign businesses and she presided over deals concerning the security of resources vital to the United States… because money was more important than propriety. Unless she DEMANDS a full investigation and cooperates fully, her campaign will suffer… as it should.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-election-2016/index.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law
Note I cite left wing sources, so you won’t pout and cry because you don’t like the sources used. Deny all you like, but there is nothing but suspicion about someone that is the subject of multiple investigations and questions deleting 30,000 emails that she and she alone says has no bearing on any of these questions. If nothing else, it is yet more proof that Hillary is incapable of being trusted with elected office.
You need to stop allowing yourself to be shielded from anything and everything you are afraid might tarnish your image of liberalism and liberals.
@Bill, #22:
They live a lavish lifestyle because they’re exceptionally wealthy people who have a lot of investment income. They’re highly successful capitalists—something the right would find praiseworthy, were they not Democrats. Hillary and Bill Clinton don’t need to run any scams with their foundation.
The right doesn’t like the fact that Hillary Clinton deleted personal e-mail from her own server? How unfortunate.
The GOP’s problem isn’t Hillary Clinton. It’s that they can’t come up with a presidential candidate of their own that a majority of Americans would vote for. Maybe they ought to work on that problem instead.
@Greg:
Well, Greg, if it weren’t for all the national-security related conflicts of interest and influence peddling, the only problem I would have with THAT is the fact that, while securely ensconced in the 1% she purports to despise (with ill-gotten gain) she hypocritically assails the wealthy.
“Investments”? What, like THIS?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3052966/posts
Hillary is the very bottom of the scrapings from the grease trap of politics. But, you just go right ahead and worship her and all her corrupt history.
Commodities trading wouldn’t meet most people’s definition of investing. She had a winning streak, and the good sense to quit while she was ahead. People also get lucky sometimes in gambling casinos.
People might want to become accustomed to the phrase Madam President. Republicans have pretty much worn out the tactic of discrediting their opponents through constant overuse. After a while, people who do nothing but throw manure begin to smell more like it than their intended targets.
@Greg:
Are you going to claim with a straight face that if a republican had received a $100,000 return on a $1000 investment in cattle futures with zero experience in commodities trading that said republican had a “winning streak”?
Surely there has never been enough koolaid drunk that would make such a statistically impossible event believable.
@Greg: Let’s just shorten this up. There is no evidence of ‘right doing’ in Baltimore.
@Greg:
You are setting yourself up for a big disappointment, Greg. Hillary’s favorability is dropping like a rock and this without her even taking questions or talking to the press. Hillary enjoys a stacked deck (such as her cattle futures windfall) and has been operating by running away from questions about her mounting scandals. Soon, though, she will HAVE to face the music; what, for instance, does she plan to do about debates… feign an injury, as she did with the Benghazi hearings?
If a viable Democrat candidate should appear, the media will hole Hillary below the water line just like they did in 2007, because they despise her. If she becomes the candidate, how will she face an opponent that poses the pressing questions that she has been running from?
You should be getting familiar with the phrase, “Obama sure screwed the Democrat party for a long, long time.”
Commodity futures trading isn’t investing. As with other form of gambling, there can be a small possibility of very big payoffs and a very big possibility of losing your entire stake.
Why should I be the least bit concerned about Hillary Clinton’s run of good luck trading cattle futures during the early 1980’s when nobody seems the least bit concerned about Dick Cheney, Halliburton, no-bid contracts, and war profiteering?
Hillary’s favorability is dropping like a rock and this without her even taking questions or talking to the press.
The 2016 presidential election match-up poll results don’t seem to reflect that. Republicans ought to worry more about getting their own act together than about trying to tear down their opponents.
@Greg:
She’s not going to be the nominee. She can’t physically handle the rigors of campaigning, her brain functions never got restored from her concussion. The heat is on in the kitchen, she’ll be bailing shortly.
@Greg:
War profiteering? you like to keep returning to LBJ and Brown and Root. The ‘real’ war profiteers.
@Greg:
Hill has done quite well at that for at least 20 years.
@Redteam: Who will be the nominee? No,,unfortunately she will be the nominee
Repubs have almost no shot at beating her—Best hope Rubio or Kasich.
@rich wheeler:
She will beat herself, as she has been doing. The scandals and corruption are history, as in historic record. She is not going to avoid those stains by avoiding addressing them, as she has been doing. How can anyone expect her to face national leaders on tough issues if she cannot face her own actions and past?
Recall, then, what happened to her popularity when she went on her speaking tours for her book. When Hillary speaks to the public, unscripted and unfiltered, she exposes her true, insincere, phony, hypocritical self and her favorability suffers greatly. While she waits in the wings, with all her little minions panting frantically for her to appear, she is popular. When she faces reality, she flops.
IF she is the liberal nominee, the media will support her, because it is liberal and pushes liberalism, at the cost of honesty. However, the media and Hillary are not a happy couple and the moment a viable liberal opponent appears, Hillary will get the full-exposure treatment. Then, as in her competition with Obama, it’s, “bu-bye, Hillary.”
@Redteam: Greg seems to forget Obama and his lining his pockets with campaign contributors getting favorable treatment as their green industries go down the tubes or no-bid contracts on the Obamacare websites (which failed and had to be rebuilt, at taxpayer expense). But, Greggo is always a bit forgetful about liberal corruption, scandal and failure. This is odd because there are always fresh failures to remind him.
@Bill: As you know I am for fellow Marine Jim Webb.
No one of sane mind believes HRC will not get the nom.
With the E.C. as it is, only a Fla/ Ohio ticket stands a chance of beating her in the G.E.
That’s Bush/Kasich/Rubio in some combo.Otherwise mail it in for HRC.
@Greg:
Now, that’s funny, Gullible Greggie. Especially coming from a guy whose sole purpose is to defend the indefensible actions of the most inept president this nation has seen in the last century. Of course, you probably believe that Obama never stooped so low as to tear down his opponent. Have you forgotten that when Bill Clinton said the Obama campaign was a “fairy tale” the Obama campaign quickly accused Clinton of racism, “fairy tale” being nothing more than a dog whistle for Bill Clinton’s racism?
When it comes to tearing down its opponents, the Obama campaign was the most vicious the nation has seen since the election cycle of Andrew Jackson. Even now, it is rumored that when Obama builds his library, over the door will have the words “It’s All George Bush’s Fault.”
Isn’t that a quote from 2008?
@rich wheeler: As I stated, Hillary will have the support of the media (the one and only element that propels Democrats past their record of failure and lies) if and ONLY if there is no other with a chance to win. The liberal media picks the candidate, not you or voters. If the liberal media finds favor with the candidate, they bury unflattering stories and promote and embellish flattering ones. If, however, they favor another, the treat the less fortunate candidate as they should treat ALL candidates; unbiasedly… which, to someone like Hillary, is the kiss of death to a campaign.
But, I am just a guy with an opinion. We shall see if I know anything about which I speak.
@Bill: Bill You know what they say about opinions lol Do you honestly think the lamesream media’s backing could get Bernie Sanders the non–any other Dem?
05 You got any thoughts on who can wrest the nom from HRC. I say again–put up an Fla/Ohio ticket to beat her
@rich wheeler:
Nope. The primary elections are 10 months away, an eternity in political terms. A lot can happen between now and then. But I remember quite clearly how the established left declared HRC the projected winner of the Democrat primaries in 2008. As I said, there is an eternity between now and March, 2016.
For me, Jeb Bush is a non-starter. He supports all the things the base opposes. He is running on name only (although he denies it). Rubio is not trusted and his previous statements, along with his affiliation with the Gang of 8, are already coming back to bite him. Walker may have peaked already. Christie might as well save his money. There is lots of time for a dark horse to appear. The Republican primary winner will be decided in March, and that depends on what state our nation is in on primary day.
The hits on Hillary will keep on coming. It was reported today that Bill’s speaking fees were listed as donations to the Clinton Foundation. That’s gonna leave a hickey. Also, Bernie Sanders has no qualms about going after Billary and he will be the far left’s dream candidate.
Just as in ’08, anyone who claims to know that HRC will take the nomination is as full of it now as they were then.
@rich wheeler:
What if the lackey media began running the stories of Hillary using the private email server against State Department policy, eradicated 30,000 emails in the face of multiple pending investigations in which they would have been pertinent, signing off on the Russians taking control of a fifth of the uranium reserves of the US, the apparent conflicts of interest between the Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments, her inconsistent stands on multiple issues, not to mention all the unanswered questions over he negligence that made the sacking of the consulate in Benghazi possible; do you STILL think Hillary would be candidate-apparent? The trick is to get the media to do it’s job, which would mean it would be delving into these stories anyway. But, for the liberal media to nail Hillary to the cross they would first have to have a sure-fire candidate to pick for us again. Like Obama, they need a candidate with NO history because, for a liberal, their history is an albatross.
Remember that; no history is no BAD history. A liberal history is a BAD history.
@Bill: Keep wishin and hopin Bill–cred.. Dusty Springfield circa 64
O5 You can make it a duet. There ain’t another BHO out there.
Jim Webb could use ALL your support.
@rich wheeler:
@rich wheeler:
Rich, you’re too old to be trying to conjure up wet dreams, go to sleep
@rich wheeler:
Good to see that prediction, since you’re always wrong, it’s not gonna change just for this.
@rich wheeler:
You continue to show how delusional you are, RW. Sure there are; from Elizabeth Warren who Obama stole the “You didn’t built that” comment from (showing he doesn’t have an original thought), to the Castro brothers, both who have political aspirations for the highest office in the land, to Bernie Sanders, to others not yet well known. Your party is loaded with BHOs. The problem your party has is you have run off all the JFK Democrats.
It will be a cold day in H-ll when I vote for another Democrat of any stripe.
@retire05:
She’s that Indian from New England isn’t she? Castro brothers? Raul and Fidel? They let them in the US? (I know to whom you’re referring) The Dims are gonna be looking hard for someone to nominate to replace the natural disaster of Hillary. They don’t want her answering questions. If she does, every answer will only dig deeper.
@Redteam:
Fauxcahontus Big Wampum is her name.
Not much difference between Raul and Fidel and their U.S. counterparts.
@retire05:
Different branch of same family of socialists.
@Redteam:
As the Obama administration continues to turn its back on Christians, that cannot bode well for the Democratic Party. Where are all the Catholic Democrats when Obama brings hundreds of Muslims to this nation due to “persecution” but refused entry to an Iraqi Catholic nun who simply wants to visit to plead the plight of Middle Eastern Christians?
History will not be kind to this Administration or the party that facilitated it.