Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog

Les Démocrates Américains se sont vendus à la Russie par le couple Clinton, le Pentagone et l'OTAN en rage contre la Russie !

Publié le par José Pedro

Hillary Clinton Attends Annual Tom Harkin Steak Fry In Iowa

Un livre à paraître le 5 mai met en lumière d'eventuels conflits d'intérêts autour de la fondation d'Hillary Clinton.

Un sujet émoustille et passionne Washington depuis quelques jours: l'argent des Clinton. Depuis qu'on a appris qu'un livre traitant de ce sujet potentiellement explosif allait inonder les librairies le 5 mai prochain, des articles fusent dans la presse et la campagne de Hillary multiplie les démentis furieux. «C'est le livre le plus attendu et le plus redouté qu'il y ait jamais eu dans un cycle présidentiel», affirme carrément le New York TimesLe Cash des Clinton veut raconter «comment et pourquoi des gouvernements et des groupes privés étrangers ont aidé Bill et Hillary à devenir riches».

 

Il n'est pas encore sorti, mais son auteur, Peter Schweizer, ancien chercheur de la fondation conservatrice Hoover, fait déjà l'objet d'une campagne de dénigrement. Le porte-parole de Hillary Clinton, Brian Fallon, le juge «peu recommandable» et «aveuglé par une animosité partisane». Son projet éditorial est un «projet visant à calomnier» la candidate démocrate pour 2016, affirme-t-il, soulignant que Schweizer a été une plume pour George W. Bush et un éditorialiste du site conservateur très engagé Breitbart.com. Cette évaluation ne correspond pas à la réputation de Schweizer, rétorque le site Bloomberg, rappelant les travaux sérieux réalisés par l'auteur sur la dynastie Bush et sur les délits d'initiés au Congrès. Schweizer travaillerait d'ailleurs depuis quatre mois à fouiller les finances du républicain Jeb Bush, pour traquer d'éventuels liens incestueux entre ses activités de gouverneur de Floride et le monde de l'argent…

Le financement de la fondation Clinton en question

Sur la base de certains extraits du livre, utilisés pour mener sa propre enquête, le New York Times, journal de sensibilité démocrate qui ne peut être soupçonné de parti pris anti-Hillary, a publié jeudi un article qui jette une lumière embarrassante sur les liens potentiels entre les intérêts de certains donateurs de la Fondation Clinton et le rôle de Hillary en tant que secrétaire d'État. Le quotidien s'intéresse au rôle qu'aurait pu jouer le couple dans l'accession de la Russie à la propriété d'une compagnie minière, au départ essentiellement canadienne, Uranium 1, qui contrôle aujourd'hui un cinquième des réserves d'uranium des États-Unis.

L'histoire raconte comment des donateurs très en vue de la Fondation Clinton - dont le flamboyant patron d'un business minier canadien Frank Giustra - ont constitué leur empire, en mettant notamment la main sur des mines d'uranium kazakhes, grâce à l'influence de «l'ami Bill». Elle montre ensuite comment le président d'Uranium 1 et certains associés ont arrosé la Fondation Clinton de millions de dollars entre 2009 et 2013, au moment où ils étaient en train de vendre une part de leurs actifs à la compagnie russe Rosatom. Hillary Clinton était alors secrétaire d'État et, à ce titre, membre du puissant Comité sur les investissements étrangers, chargé d'octroyer les autorisations de ventes d'actifs d'entreprises ayant trait à la sécurité nationale. Le journal se garde bien d'affirmer que Hillary a pu peser sur la décision avec des arrière-pensées liées aux intérêts de sa fondation. Mais il laisse la question ouverte. Élément dérangeant, le journal pointe que Bill Clinton a donné en 2010 à Moscou une conférence payée 500 000 dollars, au moment où la décision de laisser la Russie devenir majoritaire était prise à Washington.

Défis éthiques

«Personne ne peut dire si les donations ont joué un rôle, dit leTimes, mais l'épisode souligne les défis éthiques particuliers que présente la Fondation Clinton, dirigée par un ancien président qui s'est appuyé sur de l'argent étranger pour engranger quelque 250 millions de dollars d'actifs, même quand sa femme contribuait à définir la politique étrangère américaine en tant que secrétaire d'État, présidant à des décisions susceptibles de bénéficier aux donateurs.»

Le porte-parole d'Hillary a bien sûr contre-attaqué: «Personne n'a jamais produit la moindre trace de preuve soutenant la théorie que Hillary Clinton ait agi en tant que secrétaire d'État pour soutenir les intérêts des donateurs de la Fondation Clinton», affirme-t-il.

À son arrivée à son poste, Hillary Clinton avait promis une transparence totale sur les donateurs étrangers de la fondation familiale, promesse qui ne semble pas avoir été toujours tenue, comme le montre le cas des donations d'Uranium 1. Un autre article publié par le journal Politico évoque d'autres accusations de Schweizer, concernant la position de Hillary en faveur d'un accord de libre-échange avec la Colombie, affirmant qu'elle aurait pu être influencée par le lobbying en coulisses du fameux Frank Giustra, qui défendait ses affaires en terre colombienne…

«Ridicule!», rétorque Fallon, notant, à juste titre, que les donations de Giustra à la Fondation Clinton (environ 100 millions de dollars) remontent à avant 2007, date à laquelle Hillary faisait vigoureusement campagne contre un accord, comme tous les démocrates. Mais ces accusations n'en sont pas moins déstabilisantes car elles replacent Hillary au cœur d'une toile d'argent et de puissance qui colle mal avec l'image de «candidate de “M. Tout-le-Monde”» qu'elle tente de se donner. La Fondation Clinton pèserait environ 2 milliards de dollars.

 

Les Démocrates Américains se sont vendus à la Russie par le couple Clinton ! L'OTAN en roue libre!

Les liens embarrassants entre le couple Clinton et la Russie

10 jours après avoir annoncé officiellement sa candidature à la primaire démocrate (candidature saluée par Manuel Valls et Nicolas Sarkozy), Hillary Clinton fait face à un scandale. Un ouvrage intitulé Le Cash des Clinton raconte comment et pourquoi des gouvernements et des groupes privés étrangers ont aidé Bill et Hillary Clinton à devenir riches.

L’ouvrage sort le 5 mai, mais son auteur, Peter Schweizer, ancien chercheur de la fondation conservatrice Hoover, fait déjà l’objet d’une campagne de dénigrement. Sur la base de certains extraits du livre, le New York Times, journal de sensibilité démocrate (donc favorable à Hillary Clinton), a publié un article qui met en lumière sur les liens potentiels entre les intérêts de certains donateurs de la Fondation Clinton et le rôle de Hillary en tant que secrétaire d’État. Le quotidien s’intéresse au rôle qu’aurait pu jouer le couple dans l’acquisition par la Russie d’une compagnie minière canadienne, Uranium 1, qui contrôle aujourd’hui un cinquième des réserves d’uranium des États-Unis.

«  Tandis que les Russes prenaient progressivement le contrôle d’Uranium One par trois transactions successives entre 2009 et 2013 […] un flux de cash prenait le chemin de la Fondation Clinton. Le président d’Uranium One utilisait sa propre fondation familiale pour faire quatre donations d’un total de 2,35 millions de dollars. Ces contributions n’ont pas été rendues publiques en dépit d’un accord que Madame Clinton avait passé avec la Maison-Blanche »

Hillary Clinton était alors secrétaire d’État et, à ce titre, membre du puissant Comité sur les investissements étrangers, chargé d’octroyer les autorisations de ventes d’actifs d’entreprises ayant trait à la sécurité nationale. Le journal se garde bien d’affirmer que Hillary a pu peser sur la décision avec des arrière-pensées liées aux intérêts de sa fondation. Par ailleurs,Bill Clinton a donné en 2010 à Moscou une conférence payée 500 000 dollars, au moment où la décision de laisser la Russie devenir majoritaire était prise à Washington. Le chèque est signé par Renaissance Capital, une banque d’investissement russe très proche du Kremlin.

Un traité négocié en Colombie par la secrétaire d’Etat aurait fait le bonheurfinancier d’un des donateurs.

La Fondation Clinton pèserait environ 2 milliards de dollars.

Dans tous les pays du monde, c’est la même histoire, celle des faussaires aux commandes. Nous votons toujours, malgré tout, pour des imposteurs. Nous venons d’apprendre que la Fondation Clinton a admis dimanche des «erreurs» dans sa déclaration d’impôts en additionnant les dons de gouvernements étrangers avec des dons d’autres sources.

Hillary Clinton, candidate à la présidentielle de 2016, fait l’objet d’attaques pour d’éventuels conflits d’intérêts en raison des activités de la Fondation Clinton, notamment dans un livre à paraître en mai.

Le New York Times a obtenu l’ouvrage, «Clinton Cash», et rapportait lundi que l’auteur y accuse le couple Clinton d’enrichissement personnel, notamment via les discours rémunérés prononcés à l’étranger par Bill Clinton lorsque son épouse était secrétaire d’Etat (2009-2013).

Zones d’ombre

Et les dons à la fondation de certains États ou certaines entreprises étrangères ayant des intérêts à défendre à Washington, pendant qu’Hillary Clinton dirigeait la diplomatie américaine, sont observés à la loupe par les détracteurs de la démocrate et la presse. Mais pas seulement. Des personnes qui luttent aussi pour la probité morale et la vie publique…

Or, dimanche, la directrice de la Fondation, Maura Pally, a admis que l’organisation a commis une «erreur en combinant les dons de gouvernements étrangers avec des dons» d’autres sources, dans sa déclaration d’impôts, mais «nos recettes totales ont toujours été correctement signalées dans nos déclarations». Hum ! Erreur ? J’en doute…

«Oui, nous avons fait des erreurs, comme peuvent en faire des organisations de notre taille, mais nous agissons rapidement pour y remédier et avons pris les mesures qui s’imposent pour éviter qu’elles se reproduisent», a poursuivi Mme Pally, tout en promettant la «transparence». Mon oeil !

Quand on lui a rapporté le trait d'humour du président, samedi soir, Hillary Clinton a dû se souvenir de la fameuse phrase "avec des amis comme celui-là, on n'a pas besoin d'ennemis". C'était au dîner annuel du National Press Club de Washington et, selon la tradition, Barack Obama s'est plié au jeu de l'autodérision. Mais il ne s'est pas contenté de se moquer de ses échecs personnels, car, faisant allusion aux "temps durs" que traverse encore l'Amérique, il a lâché : "J'ai même une amie qui, il y a quelques semaines, gagnait des millions de dollars et qui vit maintenant dans un camping-car dans l'Iowa !"

‘ Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company’ — NYT

More Clinton Foundation Cronyism – The Deal to Sell Uranium Interests to Russia While Hillary was Secretary of State

Michael Krieger
libertyblitzkrieg.com

Screen Shot 2015-04-24 at 6.40.26 AM

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

From the New York Times article: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

 

If you looked at the U.S. economy under a microscope, what you’d see is a gigantic cancerous blob of cronyism surrounded by tech startups and huge prisons. If you zeroed in on the cancerous tumor, at the nucleus you’d see a network of crony institutions like the Federal Reserve, intelligence agencies, TBTF Wall Street banks and defense contractors. Pretty close to that, you’d probably find the Clinton Foundation. A veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity.

This year has seen a great deal of investigative work on the shadiness of the Clinton Foundation, much of which has been highlighted here at Liberty Blitzkrieg. Here’s the tally so far:

Hillary Clinton Exposed Part 1 – How She Aggressively Lobbied for Mega Corporations as Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton Exposed Part 2 – Clinton Foundation Took Millions From Countries That Also Fund ISIS

Clinton Foundation’s Deep Financial Ties to Ukrainian Oligarch Who Pushed for Closer Ties to EU Revealed

This is How Hillary Does Business – An Oil Company, Human Rights Abuses in Colombia and the Clinton Foundation

More Hillary Cronyism Revealed – How Cisco Used Clinton Foundation Donations to Cover-up Human Rights Abuse in China

The latest controversy is related to donations to the Clinton Foundation by parties with interests in uranium deals with Russia while Hillary was Secretary of State. It leverages the work of Peter Schweizer from his upcoming book “Clinton Cash,” which is already the year’s most highly anticipated political work ahead of its release date of May 5th.

Interestingly, at the very center of the latest story is Canadian businessman Frank Giustra, a very close friend of Bill Clinton. He was also at the center of the story about the oil company and human rights abuses in Colombia referenced earlier. Here’s an excerpt from that prior piece:

 

The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.

The details of her family’s entanglements in Colombia echo talk that the Clintons have blurred the lines between their private business and philanthropic interests and those of the nation. And Hillary Clinton’s connections to Pacific Rubiales and Giustra intensify recent questions about whether big donations influenced her decisions as secretary of state.

Remember the name Frank Giustra as you read the following excerpts from the blockbuster New York Times article:

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

Right, because the Clintons were able to grow their assets to $250 million thanks to unicorns and leprechauns sprinkling free cash on their heads.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign individuals and businesses whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

Somehow the New York Times failed to mention the Ukrainian coup. I won’t hold my breath for a correction.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

Here’s Frankie boy again.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Dining with an authoritarian Kazakh leader. Seems like the sort of thing you’d do while running a massive global charity.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Though the article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with the former American president as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

Yes, we all know Bill was merely there for the Kazakh oligarch funded orgies (actually, this is possible).

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

Any relation to “Friends of Angelo?”

Screen Shot 2015-04-23 at 11.31.50 AM


“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

Bill certainly keeps some very interesting friends. Let’s not forget serial pedophile Jeffery Epstein (see: Oligarch Justice – Powerful Pedophiles Roam Free as Journalist Barrett Brown Returns to Jail)

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government would substantially up the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on her husband’s foundation’s activities. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

Naturally, now that the Clintons have been caught, they are going to refile five years of taxes ahead of the release of Mr. Schweizer’s book. Standard operating procedure.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakhstan mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its annual investor conference.

Ah, Tony Blair. One of the most unabashed war criminal profiteers alive today. Recall:

Letter Reveals Tony Blair Advised Kazakhstan’s President on How to Spin Massacre of Innocent, Unarmed Protesters

Tony Blair Gets Paid (Again) – Secret $61,000 per Month Contract with Saudis Revealed

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” 

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was eventually delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of the company.

Meanwhile, on MSNBC this morning, “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer mentioned he will be publishing a similar expose on Jeb Bush’s finances and cronyism next. It’s expected to be released this summer. Time to break out the popcorn.

For related articles, see:

Hillary Clinton Exposed Part 1 – How She Aggressively Lobbied for Mega Corporations as Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton Exposed Part 2 – Clinton Foundation Took Millions From Countries That Also Fund ISIS

Clinton Foundation’s Deep Financial Ties to Ukrainian Oligarch Who Pushed for Closer Ties to EU Revealed

This is How Hillary Does Business – An Oil Company, Human Rights Abuses in Colombia and the Clinton Foundation

More Hillary Cronyism Revealed – How Cisco Used Clinton Foundation Donations to Cover-up Human Rights Abuse in China

http://www.defenseone.com/news/?oref=d-nav

Author archiveRon Fournier

Ron Fournier

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 Sentinel-Record and then with the Arkansas Democrat and the AP, where he covered the state legislature and Gov. Bill Clinton.

The media mostly wants it to be about Election Day 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Proof of the Clintons’ Wrongdoing

Her campaign and the media are misreading the scandals.

 

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.”

We commission polls and hire pundits to parse the winners and losers of each news cycle. We shrug, “Real voters 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 election results. A Clinton victory wouldn’t necessarily mean voters 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 voters also may think modern journalists care more about clicks than conflicts of interest and potential corruption. Are they right about that?

Finally, voters 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 transform 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 elections 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