Ever utterance of Donald Trump has become fodder for a media thrashing. To be fair, the Republican presidential candidate often has no one to blame but himself. At the same time, his opponent Democrat Hillary Clinton may be the least scrutinized candidate since Barrack Obama in 2008.
While Mr. Trump mixes it up almost daily with an unfriendly press, the heavily scripted Ms. Clinton shuns the media. She has not held a news conference in nearly 250 days. Halley's Comet appears in the sky more often than Ms. Clinton takes questions from a gaggle of news reporters.
The liberal media has dug into Mr. Trump's business and personal life with a vengeance. Unflattering stories have appeared in the usual Democrat-controlled media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. Meanwhile, there seems to be no journalistic interest in Ms. Clinton's past.
Certainly, there are a bushel of scandals for an enterprising media to investigate about Ms. Clinton. However, the mainstream moguls have sold their journalistic souls to the Democrat cause. Big media has made no pretense about its support for Ms. Clinton and animosity toward Mr. Trump.
As a service to the faux journalists who populate today's media, here are five stories that are tailor made for an investigative team of reporters to examine:
Clinton Foundation
Three of the largest donations to the Clinton Foundation originated from Saudi Arabia, a country with some of the world's most repressive laws against women. The Kingdom of Saudi Foundation has handed over $10-$20 million in cash. Two of the wealthiest Saudi businessmen, Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi and Nasser Ibrahim Al-Rashid, have each contributed $1-$5 million. This data comes from the Clinton Foundation, which only lists ranges of donations instead of the actual dollar amount. Why does Ms. Clinton's foundation accept millions from countries which oppress women?
Clinton Speeches
Ms. Clinton gave three speeches during a four month period to Goldman Sachs, the leading global investment, banking, securities and investment management firm. She earned a staggering $675,000 for the private chats with Wall Street's elite bankers. Other banking giants also paid to hear Ms. Clinton, including UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Since 2013, Ms.Clinton has raked in $21 million in speaking fees. Shouldn't Ms. Clinton be pressed by the media on her cozy relationship with the world's largest banks, especially since she has pledged to be tough on Wall Street's misdeeds?
State Department Email Probe
Mere days after the FBI and Justice Department whitewashed the investigation of Ms. Clinton's handling of classified material, the State Department announced it would resume its own probe of the same issue. The department had shelved its investigation after the FBI announced it was conducting its examination. State has promised to delve into whether Ms. Clinton and her staffers violated the department's rules for securing secret communications. If the department finds sufficient evidence of violations, it has the authority to revoke Ms. Clinton's security clearance. A vigilant media would be dogging the State Department for information about the investigation's progress because the president of the country must have access to classified information. The outcome matters.
Tax Issue
When the Clinton Foundation was caught fiddling with its books, it was forced to admit last year that it needed to amend its tax filings for the years 2010 through 2013. One of the egregious errors was the foundation's accounting of revenue for speeches given by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The money paid to the Clinton's was reported as charitable contributions. The fees should have been recognized as payments for services. While the foundation was forced to restate its tax filings, Ms. Clinton should have been required to amend her own tax documents. Did Ms. Clinton also reconcile her tax filings for the years 2010-2013 to include the earnings from speeches previously unreported and has she paid additional taxes?
Clinton Connections to LaFarge
Most Americans have never heard of the French company LaFarge for good reasons. The media has covered up allegations that Hillary Clinton's former employer LaFarge faces claims it channeled funds to ISIS. Ms. Clinton once served as a director of Lafarge and has done legal work for the firm. LaFarge is an annual donor to the Clinton Foundation. During Ms. Clinton's service on the board, LaFarge was fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for pollution violations in Alabama and was embroiled in a flap over its us of hazard waste to fuel cement plants in the U.S. Recently, LaFarge was implicated in negotiations with ISIS to allow the company to continue its operations in Syria. Why would Ms. Clinton associate with a company with such a dubious environmental record? Did her foundation accept donations from LaFarge even after it became public the French firm was funneling cash to terrorists?
Of course, the media cabal will not even taken a whiff of these potential scandals. Unfortunately, these are serious issues that matter about the integrity, honesty and qualifications of the nation's top officeholder. But a spat between Donald Trump and his latest victim is much more entertaining.
Hillary Clinton has already given the media its marching orders. They are to destroy Mr. Trump's character and portray him as unfit for the office. Don't expect the nation's press to deviate one iota from the Democrat candidate's script.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Hillary: Not Guilty But Hardly Innocent
Anyone paying attention understood the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton was going nowhere the second former president Bill Clinton waltzed on a plane for a secret meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Seven days later, the FBI gave the former Secretary of State a get-out-of-jail card.
Coincidence? That's what Democrats and the news media would like for you to believe. But it requires a suspension of reality to conclude the "chance" meeting had nothing to do with the swift resolution of an FBI investigation that had been plodding along since at least August of last year.
Consider the breathtaking speed of events that unfolded after Ms. Lynch welcomed Mr. Clinton onto her government jet in Phoenix. Within short order, the long-awaited FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton was held in New York. After a three-and-one-half hour grilling, she sauntered to a Broadway show.
In the meantime, an embarrassed Ms. Lynch conducted a damage-control tour. She appeared on television to assure Americans she was taking a hands off approach to the email inquiry. Ms. Lynch is FBI director James Comey's boss. Yet she intimated she was out of the loop.
Ms. Lynch's subordinate was handling a high-profile case, involving the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Are Americans supposed to believe she never bothered to ask about the FBI's progress? There is no question Ms. Lynch was thoroughly briefed on the inquest.
Days after Ms. Lynch's 20-to-30 minute private chat with the former president, the FBI put a neat ribbon on its investigation, concluding that "no charges are appropriate in this case." A Clinton campaign spokesman immediately crowed "this matter is now resolved."
Is there any doubt Bill Clinton lobbied Ms. Lynch for a speedy resolution of the probe? Did he also dangle a promise Ms. Lynch would remain AG if his wife is elected? These questions may sound like little more than conspiracy theory to some, but the meeting altered the trajectory of the FBI probe.
Even if the meeting had not happened, there never was going to be an indictment of Mrs. Clinton. That was obvious after Mr. Obama's endorsement of his former Secretary of State and his expression of confidence that she would be exonerated by the FBI.
As far back as April, Mr. Obama sent public signals to Comey about what the president expected. In an interview, the president called her use of a private server "carelessness" and added Mrs. Clinton "would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy." Comey obviously paid attention.
Not coincidentally, the six-foot-eight inch FBI director almost used Mr. Obama's exact words and same logic in declining to recommend prosecution.
In his media briefing, Comey tried his best to appear transparent in presenting the FBI finding. However, he relied on a legal definition of the former secretary's "intent," even as he acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton was "extremely careless" in the handling of classified information.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of statues regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said. His conclusion was that Mrs. Clinton did not "willfully mishandle classified information."
Clearly, Comey's decision hinged on his belief Mrs. Clinton was not guilty of intentionally mistreating classified documents. That is a curious finding in light of her intentional deployment of a non-secure private server to handle her email, instead of using the State Department's secure system.
Even Comey tried to tap dance around the obvious contradiction.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," he told reporters. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
His explanation was an obvious attempt to head-off his critics, who contend he applied a different standard to Mrs. Clinton. By raising the specter of serious repercussions, he hoped people would infer the director could have nailed her except for the legal interpretation he was compelled to follow.
Under questioning by Congress, Comey was forced to admit that Mrs. Clinton's version of her handling of emails did not square with his agency's findings. The FBI found she sent and received classified documents, she used more than one device and her server was likely compromised.
On numerous occasions, Mrs. Clinton had unequivocally denied every one of those offenses. Curiously, the FBI did not require the former secretary to testify under oath, sparing her a future prosecution on perjury charges. This wasn't the only unusual accommodation that Comey made.
Days after Comey's briefing, it was learned that FBI agents who worked the investigation of Mrs. Clinton were required to sign an unorthodox non-disclosure agreement banning them from talking about the case. Obviously, Comey wanted to prevent leaks that might embarrass the secretary.
An ABC/Washington Post poll delivered a stunning rebuke of both Clinton and the FBI. A majority (56%) of those surveyed disapproved of the federal agency's decision not to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime. Only 35 percent approved of the FBI verdict.
Americans know a fix when they see one. The FBI and Justice Department colluded to make the email scandal disappear before the Democratic Convention. The probe's ending has left Americans shaking their heads in disbelief as once again the Clintons escape legal prosecution.
Coincidence? That's what Democrats and the news media would like for you to believe. But it requires a suspension of reality to conclude the "chance" meeting had nothing to do with the swift resolution of an FBI investigation that had been plodding along since at least August of last year.
Consider the breathtaking speed of events that unfolded after Ms. Lynch welcomed Mr. Clinton onto her government jet in Phoenix. Within short order, the long-awaited FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton was held in New York. After a three-and-one-half hour grilling, she sauntered to a Broadway show.
In the meantime, an embarrassed Ms. Lynch conducted a damage-control tour. She appeared on television to assure Americans she was taking a hands off approach to the email inquiry. Ms. Lynch is FBI director James Comey's boss. Yet she intimated she was out of the loop.
Ms. Lynch's subordinate was handling a high-profile case, involving the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Are Americans supposed to believe she never bothered to ask about the FBI's progress? There is no question Ms. Lynch was thoroughly briefed on the inquest.
Days after Ms. Lynch's 20-to-30 minute private chat with the former president, the FBI put a neat ribbon on its investigation, concluding that "no charges are appropriate in this case." A Clinton campaign spokesman immediately crowed "this matter is now resolved."
Is there any doubt Bill Clinton lobbied Ms. Lynch for a speedy resolution of the probe? Did he also dangle a promise Ms. Lynch would remain AG if his wife is elected? These questions may sound like little more than conspiracy theory to some, but the meeting altered the trajectory of the FBI probe.
Even if the meeting had not happened, there never was going to be an indictment of Mrs. Clinton. That was obvious after Mr. Obama's endorsement of his former Secretary of State and his expression of confidence that she would be exonerated by the FBI.
As far back as April, Mr. Obama sent public signals to Comey about what the president expected. In an interview, the president called her use of a private server "carelessness" and added Mrs. Clinton "would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy." Comey obviously paid attention.
Not coincidentally, the six-foot-eight inch FBI director almost used Mr. Obama's exact words and same logic in declining to recommend prosecution.
In his media briefing, Comey tried his best to appear transparent in presenting the FBI finding. However, he relied on a legal definition of the former secretary's "intent," even as he acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton was "extremely careless" in the handling of classified information.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of statues regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Comey said. His conclusion was that Mrs. Clinton did not "willfully mishandle classified information."
Clearly, Comey's decision hinged on his belief Mrs. Clinton was not guilty of intentionally mistreating classified documents. That is a curious finding in light of her intentional deployment of a non-secure private server to handle her email, instead of using the State Department's secure system.
Even Comey tried to tap dance around the obvious contradiction.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," he told reporters. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
His explanation was an obvious attempt to head-off his critics, who contend he applied a different standard to Mrs. Clinton. By raising the specter of serious repercussions, he hoped people would infer the director could have nailed her except for the legal interpretation he was compelled to follow.
Under questioning by Congress, Comey was forced to admit that Mrs. Clinton's version of her handling of emails did not square with his agency's findings. The FBI found she sent and received classified documents, she used more than one device and her server was likely compromised.
On numerous occasions, Mrs. Clinton had unequivocally denied every one of those offenses. Curiously, the FBI did not require the former secretary to testify under oath, sparing her a future prosecution on perjury charges. This wasn't the only unusual accommodation that Comey made.
Days after Comey's briefing, it was learned that FBI agents who worked the investigation of Mrs. Clinton were required to sign an unorthodox non-disclosure agreement banning them from talking about the case. Obviously, Comey wanted to prevent leaks that might embarrass the secretary.
An ABC/Washington Post poll delivered a stunning rebuke of both Clinton and the FBI. A majority (56%) of those surveyed disapproved of the federal agency's decision not to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime. Only 35 percent approved of the FBI verdict.
Americans know a fix when they see one. The FBI and Justice Department colluded to make the email scandal disappear before the Democratic Convention. The probe's ending has left Americans shaking their heads in disbelief as once again the Clintons escape legal prosecution.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Will Hillary Clinton Be Indicted?
Republicans fantasize about a throng of FBI agents swooping into Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters and hauling her off in handcuffs. They daydream about the Democratic presidential front-runner decked out in an orange jumpsuit lolling in a prison exercise yard.
Their swooning has taken social media by storm. Thousands of posts on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and other sites feature unflattering images of Ms. Clinton in prison garb, behind bars or on trial. Judging from the content, the former First Lady's critics have no doubt about her guilt.
However, the decision on her legal future rests primarily with the FBI. There is a cadre of 147 FBI agents investigating Ms. Clinton's use of a private email server to receive and transmit classified materials. That information comes from The Washington Post, a liberal iconic newspaper.
The crux of the investigation revolves around whether Ms. Clinton or her aides knowingly communicated government secrets over a non-secure email system while she served as Secretary of State. Legal experts point out it does not matter if the emails were marked classified or not.
Every government official, including cabinet level executives, are obligated to recognize sensitive material and protect against its release to unauthorized individuals or organizations. No one gets a "Get Out Of Jail" card if the material does not carry the "Classified" stamp.
The episode has raised questions about Ms. Clinton's judgment. But Clinton surrogates have trotted out their standard defense of "everyone else does it," as if that justifies illegal behavior. Her own public utterances about the FBI inquiry have been carefully parsed and not very forthcoming.
However, none of this matters to the Clinton Campaign. They swear that voters have "largely dismissed" the email issue. That is a gratuitous opinion. A majority of Democratic primary voters (56%) view her as untrustworthy. Her unfavorable ratings are among the highest of all candidates.
Despite news leaks about mounting evidence against Ms. Clinton, the email scandal likely will not end with an indictment. No clear thinking person actually believes the Obama Administration will allow any Democrat to suffer the indignation of a criminal prosecution based on its history.
Investigations of the Obama Administration and its top officials suffer early deaths. Benghazi went nowhere. The IRS scandal evaporated. The Veterans Affairs dust up has been buried. Meanwhile, the sycophant news media looks the other way and chastises Republicans for chasing ghosts.
Some guardians of justice point to the stubborn independence of FBI Director James Comey as reason to expect felony charges. The six-foot-eight-inch tall lawman served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, burnishing his credentials as even-handed.
However, Comey serves at the pleasure of the president. What if Comey suddenly steps down under pressure? Sure there would be howls of protest, but so what? This is an administration that has shown it has no shame when it comes jettisoning those who disagree with its political objectives.
Even if Comey recommends a criminal charge, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has the final word on prosecution. There is no doubt Ms. Lynch will carry out the president's wishes in this matter. Her office will either dismiss the complaint or foot-drag past the election before dropping the case.
If the president did not plan to run interference for Mrs. Clinton, he would have encouraged his trusted Vice President Joe Biden to enter the presidential race long ago. Only the naive would hold to the notion that Mrs. Clinton has not obtained assurances from Mr. Obama about the outcome.
The betting here is that the FBI will find no criminal wrongdoing, but will issue a strongly worded reprimand for her use of a private server to conduct classified government business. A contrite Mrs. Clinton will offer a half-hearted apology and the incident will be off limits during the campaign.
Truth has never been an admired virtue of Mrs. Clinton or her husband. They prevaricate, deconstruct and evade. Every moral or legal infraction ends the same. The Clintons are political Houdini's who always escape responsibility for their misdeeds.
Their swooning has taken social media by storm. Thousands of posts on Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and other sites feature unflattering images of Ms. Clinton in prison garb, behind bars or on trial. Judging from the content, the former First Lady's critics have no doubt about her guilt.
However, the decision on her legal future rests primarily with the FBI. There is a cadre of 147 FBI agents investigating Ms. Clinton's use of a private email server to receive and transmit classified materials. That information comes from The Washington Post, a liberal iconic newspaper.
The crux of the investigation revolves around whether Ms. Clinton or her aides knowingly communicated government secrets over a non-secure email system while she served as Secretary of State. Legal experts point out it does not matter if the emails were marked classified or not.
Every government official, including cabinet level executives, are obligated to recognize sensitive material and protect against its release to unauthorized individuals or organizations. No one gets a "Get Out Of Jail" card if the material does not carry the "Classified" stamp.
The episode has raised questions about Ms. Clinton's judgment. But Clinton surrogates have trotted out their standard defense of "everyone else does it," as if that justifies illegal behavior. Her own public utterances about the FBI inquiry have been carefully parsed and not very forthcoming.
However, none of this matters to the Clinton Campaign. They swear that voters have "largely dismissed" the email issue. That is a gratuitous opinion. A majority of Democratic primary voters (56%) view her as untrustworthy. Her unfavorable ratings are among the highest of all candidates.
Despite news leaks about mounting evidence against Ms. Clinton, the email scandal likely will not end with an indictment. No clear thinking person actually believes the Obama Administration will allow any Democrat to suffer the indignation of a criminal prosecution based on its history.
Investigations of the Obama Administration and its top officials suffer early deaths. Benghazi went nowhere. The IRS scandal evaporated. The Veterans Affairs dust up has been buried. Meanwhile, the sycophant news media looks the other way and chastises Republicans for chasing ghosts.
Some guardians of justice point to the stubborn independence of FBI Director James Comey as reason to expect felony charges. The six-foot-eight-inch tall lawman served as deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, burnishing his credentials as even-handed.
However, Comey serves at the pleasure of the president. What if Comey suddenly steps down under pressure? Sure there would be howls of protest, but so what? This is an administration that has shown it has no shame when it comes jettisoning those who disagree with its political objectives.
Even if Comey recommends a criminal charge, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has the final word on prosecution. There is no doubt Ms. Lynch will carry out the president's wishes in this matter. Her office will either dismiss the complaint or foot-drag past the election before dropping the case.
If the president did not plan to run interference for Mrs. Clinton, he would have encouraged his trusted Vice President Joe Biden to enter the presidential race long ago. Only the naive would hold to the notion that Mrs. Clinton has not obtained assurances from Mr. Obama about the outcome.
The betting here is that the FBI will find no criminal wrongdoing, but will issue a strongly worded reprimand for her use of a private server to conduct classified government business. A contrite Mrs. Clinton will offer a half-hearted apology and the incident will be off limits during the campaign.
Truth has never been an admired virtue of Mrs. Clinton or her husband. They prevaricate, deconstruct and evade. Every moral or legal infraction ends the same. The Clintons are political Houdini's who always escape responsibility for their misdeeds.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Clinton Cash: Liberal Vultures Circling Hillary
Those baggy pants suits aren't the only thing sullying Hillary Clinton's image these days. A string of embarrassing revelations about the double-dealing Clinton Foundation has tarnished whatever sheen remained of the Clinton mystique. Now she faces the reality that party liberals are feeding the frenzy.
After Hillary dodged the email scandal, most Democrats' faith was restored in the Clinton game plan of bullying the media into submission. The scalding news coverage of the deleted emails quickly evaporated under a barrage of Clinton denials. But this latest imbroglio is a political game changer.
The difference is that the liberal media, led by ultra-left The New York Times, has decided that Hillary's candidacy will end in failure next November. Many left-leaning groups, like Common Cause, agree. They are secretly campaigning for a more liberal Democrat in the Obama-mold to carry the banner.
How else can you explain the media's sudden about-face from Clinton clones to Hillary hyper critics?
The New York Times revealed how the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation hauled in cash from foreign governments and their surrogates while Hillary as Secretary of State dealt with issues these donors had vested interests in pursuing with the United States.
That liberal bastion The Washington Post followed the sleazy trail of money from the governments of Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Algeria that flooded into the Clinton Foundation. Hillary huddled with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from Algeria, the paper reported.
The stench was so malodorous that liberal Common Cause demanded an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation. Their plea came on the heels of an investigation by Reuters news service that uncovered numerous errors in the foundation's IRS reports about foreign donations.
Under pressure, the foundation on Sunday admitted it "made mistakes" and promised to refile reports to correct the inaccuracies. Even before that admission of guilt, Hillary stepped down from the foundation and claimed her charity would no longer accept money from countries that discriminate against women.
Despite her transparent efforts to save face, Hillary's critics on the left are having none of it. They recognize a wounded candidate when they see one. And they understand these latest disclosures are only the tip of what is a large iceberg looming beneath the murky Clinton surface.
For example, the media still hasn't gotten its claws into the Clinton Foundation records on expenses. Between 2009 and 2012, the foundation shelled out $110 million in salaries and benefits, $25 million in travel on private jets, and $290 million in other expenses, including such items as housing.
In 2013, Hillary, Bill and daughter Chelsea racked up $8.448 million in travel costs on behalf of the foundation. That kind of lavish spending will soon catch the interest of the media. That same year, 2013, the foundation raised an astounding $144.4 million for its coffers.
If that doesn't set off alarms, consider that a measly 15 percent of the $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation from 2009-2012 went to grants. The rest was gobbled up by expenses. That is 85 percent of the money that poured into the Clinton money machine.
Liberal Democrats can read the handwriting. Hillary and her vapor trail of skunk-smelling scandals will doom Democrats next November. They want someone with less baggage and an individual that doesn't just lean left, but teeters on the liberal ledge. Someone to carry on the Obama legacy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the uber left, remains adamant she will not seek the Democrat presidential nomination. But the media is doing all it can to deep-six Hillary to pave the way for a draft-Warren effort.
Perhaps, Hillary will somehow resurrect her campaign from her stinking garbage pile. But as she herself once said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
For once, Hillary Clinton is right. Only her abrupt departure from the presidential race will erase the scent of a certain Democrat defeat.
After Hillary dodged the email scandal, most Democrats' faith was restored in the Clinton game plan of bullying the media into submission. The scalding news coverage of the deleted emails quickly evaporated under a barrage of Clinton denials. But this latest imbroglio is a political game changer.
The difference is that the liberal media, led by ultra-left The New York Times, has decided that Hillary's candidacy will end in failure next November. Many left-leaning groups, like Common Cause, agree. They are secretly campaigning for a more liberal Democrat in the Obama-mold to carry the banner.
How else can you explain the media's sudden about-face from Clinton clones to Hillary hyper critics?
The New York Times revealed how the tax-exempt Clinton Foundation hauled in cash from foreign governments and their surrogates while Hillary as Secretary of State dealt with issues these donors had vested interests in pursuing with the United States.
That liberal bastion The Washington Post followed the sleazy trail of money from the governments of Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Algeria that flooded into the Clinton Foundation. Hillary huddled with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from Algeria, the paper reported.
The stench was so malodorous that liberal Common Cause demanded an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation. Their plea came on the heels of an investigation by Reuters news service that uncovered numerous errors in the foundation's IRS reports about foreign donations.
Under pressure, the foundation on Sunday admitted it "made mistakes" and promised to refile reports to correct the inaccuracies. Even before that admission of guilt, Hillary stepped down from the foundation and claimed her charity would no longer accept money from countries that discriminate against women.
Despite her transparent efforts to save face, Hillary's critics on the left are having none of it. They recognize a wounded candidate when they see one. And they understand these latest disclosures are only the tip of what is a large iceberg looming beneath the murky Clinton surface.
For example, the media still hasn't gotten its claws into the Clinton Foundation records on expenses. Between 2009 and 2012, the foundation shelled out $110 million in salaries and benefits, $25 million in travel on private jets, and $290 million in other expenses, including such items as housing.
In 2013, Hillary, Bill and daughter Chelsea racked up $8.448 million in travel costs on behalf of the foundation. That kind of lavish spending will soon catch the interest of the media. That same year, 2013, the foundation raised an astounding $144.4 million for its coffers.
If that doesn't set off alarms, consider that a measly 15 percent of the $500 million raised by the Clinton Foundation from 2009-2012 went to grants. The rest was gobbled up by expenses. That is 85 percent of the money that poured into the Clinton money machine.
Liberal Democrats can read the handwriting. Hillary and her vapor trail of skunk-smelling scandals will doom Democrats next November. They want someone with less baggage and an individual that doesn't just lean left, but teeters on the liberal ledge. Someone to carry on the Obama legacy.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the uber left, remains adamant she will not seek the Democrat presidential nomination. But the media is doing all it can to deep-six Hillary to pave the way for a draft-Warren effort.
Perhaps, Hillary will somehow resurrect her campaign from her stinking garbage pile. But as she herself once said, "At this point, what difference does it make?"
For once, Hillary Clinton is right. Only her abrupt departure from the presidential race will erase the scent of a certain Democrat defeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)