The Globe joins in on the Clinton Foundation’s irregularities
The Boston Globe is every bit as liberal a paper as the New York Times, and both of them are offering a fair amount of criticism of the Clinton Foundation’s suspicious slip-ups.
An unprecedented ethics promise that played a pivotal role in helping Hillary Rodham Clinton win confirmation as secretary of state, soothing senators’ concerns about conflicts of interests with Clinton family charities, was uniformly bypassed by the biggest of the philanthropies involved.
The Clinton Health Access Initiative never submitted information on any foreign donations to State Department lawyers for review during Clinton’s tenure from 2009 to 2013, Maura Daley, the organization’s spokeswoman, acknowledged to the Globe this week. She said the charity deemed it unnecessary, except in one case that she described as an “oversight.”
During that time, grants from foreign governments increased by tens of millions of dollars to the Boston-based organization.
I continue to think that this criticism by the liberal press has a twofold purpose: the first is to try to get a candidate who is more to the left (leading example is Massachusetts’ own, Elizabeth Warren) to challenge Hillary and win the nomination and the election.
The second motivation is that if that fails to happen and Hillary wins the nomination, the news will have been thoroughly aired already—and the narrative controlled and shaped by the liberal press rather than conservatives—and by then most people will be yawning at it the way they are at the Benghazi story.
Bloomberg has jumped in as well: “Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations”
Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, of “the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)–a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president” claims that Canadian law barred them from revealing the donors but Canadian legal experts disagree.
IMO, you’re spot on about the media’s motivations.
There is no contingency in the future, no matter it be modern, post Republic, postmodern, that has not been remarked upon sometime in the long ago, proving there is nothing new under the sun. All the Clinton shenanigans, in toto, had been dealt with by one Sir John Harington, who well knew of what he spoke, being the inventor of the flush toilet.
Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
“I continue to think that this criticism by the liberal press has a twofold purpose: the first is to try to get a candidate who is more to the left (leading example is Massachusetts’ own, Elizabeth Warren) to challenge Hillary and win the nomination and the election.”
Nope. It’s about getting some thing like Warren in the VP slot at the convention…. then out onto the campaign trail… and then… sometime in late September 2016 having Hillary drop out following a public collapse … or, better still, seeing to it that Hillary dies on the trail (due to that stroke, don’t cha know?). That would leave the door open for Warren or the other leftoid VP to haul in a black or hispanic on their new ticket and win 2016 on the sympathy vote for a disabled or dead Hillary.
Brilliant realpolitick.
And yet – on Facebook last night my liberal friends were posting links to Hillary’s “amazing” speech yesterday, adding comments like “It’s so good to see her back in the spotlight!” Ooooo! ahhhh!!
vanderleun,
That’s another possibility, if a bit Hollywood. As it would rely on either Hillary cooperating (unlikely given her ego) or hoping for an accident (hope is not a strategy) or planning… to murder her? Which, talk about disastrous… if it failed and was exposed.
Plus two women on the ticket? That doesn’t buy a lot more votes, as Warren’s leftists are not going to vote for the GOP candidate. Now the First Woman Pres with the first gay(!) Hispanic VP, that’s as PC as its currently possible to be 😉
Oh wait! There’s rumors that Hillary bats for the other team as well! Now that’s a ticket liberals can get behind!
The second motivation is that if that fails to happen and Hillary wins the nomination, the news will have been thoroughly aired already–and the narrative controlled and shaped by the liberal press rather than conservatives–and by then most people will be yawning at it the way they are at the Benghazi story.
Maybe, but even the liberal press surely has to know that since it’s Hillary and Bill there’s no guarantee the “news will have been thoroughly aired already.” There seems to be a bottomless well of corruption where they’re concerned, so there may be no let-up in one story after the other coming out from now until November 2016.
And you forget the self congratulatory press patting themselves on the back about their relentless scrutiny of Mrs. Clinton and how that somehow vindicates her rampant dishonesty
Glad the Globe at least picked up this angle, too.
Funny that it’s still not being attributed to Obama as a failure of oversight, or potentially approval. Typical MSM blindspot or protecting their sources?
Veteran WH reporter Keith Koffler stated the obvious on his blog yesterday:
“Excuse Me, This is an Obama Administration Scandal”
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/
I am completely floored that there is not a massive public outcry for a criminal investigation.
Bill and Hillary knew that Obama would never prosecute and that was mostly a result of impeachment.
The two of them are completely immune and they can do anything they want.