Gitzo Loc: Indiana

The Proof of the Clintons’ Wrongdoing

APRIL 27, 2015 / By Ron Fournier / National Journal


Ron Fournier is the Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director of National Journal. Prior to joining NJ, he worked at the Associated Press for 20 years, most recently as Washington Bureau Chief. A Detroit native, Fournier began his career in Arkansas, first with the Hot Springs



Her campaign and the media are misreading the scandals. 2016
Let’s remember what this story is about. Hillary and Bill Clinton want it to be about a “conservative author” who catalogued their conflicts of interest. They want it to be about the New York Times, the Washington Post, and any other media outlets who dare to question the couple’s integrity. They want it to be about “Republican overreach.”

The media mostly wants it to be about E******n Day 2016. We commission polls and hire pundits to parse the winners and losers of each news cycle. We shrug, “Real v**ers don’t care about this story.” As if it’s not our job to help them understand why these scandals matters.

Hillary Clinton seized all emails pertaining to her job as Secretary of State and deleted an unknown number of messages from her private server. Her family charity accepted foreign and corporate donations from people doing business with the State Department – people who hoped to curry favor.

She violated government rules designed to protect against corruption and perceptions of corruption that erode the public’s trust in government. She has not apologized. She has not made amends: She withholds the email server and continues to accept foreign donations.

That’s what this is about.

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? It takes a pretty desperate and cynical campaign to set the bar of acceptable behavior at anything short of bribery.

The Clinton team also points to errors made by news organizations investigating the email and foundation scandals, particularly the work around Schweizer’s book. That is their right, but they’re nibbling around the edges: The core ingredients of the Clintons’ wrongdoing has not been misreported.

Like so many past scandals, these twin issues show the Clintons to be entitled, ethically challenged rule-breakers who believe the ends justify the means. “The best-case scenario is bad enough,” writes liberal columnist Jonathan Chait. “The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.”

The media should not conflate the ethical issues with the campaign “horse race” and e******n results. A Clinton victory wouldn’t necessarily mean v**ers found her behavior acceptable. They may just find it to be, sadly, standard operating procedure in Washington. They would be right.

Having lost faith in every American institution, some v**ers also may think modern journalists care more about clicks than conflicts of interest and potential corruption. Are they right about that?

Finally, v**ers may find the GOP alternatives to Clinton to be just as sleazy or unattractive. Schweizer says he’s digging into questionable business practices of potential Clinton rival Jeb Bush.

In this era of zero-sum-gain politics and “negative partisanship,” Clinton can always count on being the least-lousy alternative. But that’s no way to win the presidency, much less a mandate to lead and t***sform a nation.

Which reminds me of a nagging question: If, as the White House wants us to believe, President Obama is upset at Clinton for violating his ethics rules, why hasn’t he publicly rebuked her? Perhaps he’s more concerned about the 2016 e******ns than good government.

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.

You don’t have to be a political scientist to know this behavior contributes to the public’sdeclining trust in its leaders.

But to believe this is just about the actions of a book author, the mainstream media, and Republicans, it helps to be a Clinton.



My comments;

The Clintons are;
#1. Power hungry
#2. Corrupt to the max
#3. Liars
#4. Dishonest to the max
#5. Scheming
#6. Narcissistic
#7. Completely shameless
#8. LOW Class
#9. Evil
#10. Despicable

Every Republican who has ever attempted to get the G.O.P. nomination to run for POTUS, and every one of them who HAVE run for POTUS, has had to withstand a huge barrage of lies, innuendo, more lies, charges of being "unethical", etc etc etc etc. from Democrats. PLease show me ONE Democrat who "isn't" all of the things that I attributed to the Clintons. (You'll have a hard time finding just one! (Note; Forum member "GeorgeL" from Georgia ia a Dem, but I think George IS an honest man; at the very least, I know George is a nice person. )

Whoever gets the GOP nomination in 2016 will surely face the same thing. Even if Hillary Clinton "survives" to run, (which I seriously doubt is going to happen ). For anyone truly wanting to see the "real Hillary Clinton", I very much suggest you read this book;

http://buzzpatterson.com/aboutus.asp?id06=57&par06=0

"Dereliction of Duty"; An Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton C*********d America's National Security.
Hardcover: 256 pages
Dimensions (in inches): 0.89 x 9.26 x 6.40
Author: Buzz Patterson
Publisher: Regnery Publishing; (March 1, 2003)

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson was a military aide to President Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football"—the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons. This responsibility meant that he spent a considerable amount of time next to the president, giving him a unique perspective on the Clinton administration. Though he arrived at the job "filled with professional devotion and commitment to serve," he left believing that Clinton had "sown a whirlwind of destruction upon the integrity of our government, endangered our national security, and done enormous harm to the American military in which I served."

That was Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton as POTUS would be 10 times WORSE.

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

Gitzo, you are right on the money with this one. I have a friend that is a Federal officer at the U.S mint in Denver. He personally knows some of the secret service people that protected the Clintons. They say the Clintons were no more than power hungry, money grubbing trash that has no respect for the people protecting them or working for them...including their personal cook. They did not care what "john Q. Public" wanted until it was time for e******ns. They have no reason to lie about this.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

The 10 'qualities' shown are their best 'qualities'.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Well let's see, did Bill and Hillary get out of bed this morning?

There's your proof. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

Miss Penny;
My step daughter used to date a secret service guy who was on the "present resident" of the WH protection detail; he said much the same thing, only worse, and then quit and went back to his former LE job.

Penny MG Loc: Fresno, Texas

I can definitely believe that!!!!!!!! Its ashamed that the people who feel they demand the highest respect doesn't know how to respect those beneath them. (beneath them ONLY in job title.)