I laughed today when I read a piece in The New Republic by Brian Beutler announcing that Hillary Clinton does not have a conflict of interest problem. That's right, this leftist reporter writing in a well known (if little read) journal of liberal opinion says that the Hillary Clinton/Clinton Foundation scandal is not really going to hurt Hillary. Beutler's reasoning is that none of the Republican candidates will be able to say much about the Clinton fund raising actions because each of them also have big money donors who are attempting to buy influence with a future president. The argument is specious, that I actually checked to make sure that the article was not a parody before writing about it. The author is absolutely serious, a fact which makes the argument all the more ridiculous.
Let's start with a few facts:
1. For the last hundred years at least, large donors to candidates in America's presidential campaigns have given cash, in part at least, to have future access to the next president. That is true for Democrats and for Republicans.
2. In the last few decades, there have been laws in place that control the manner of making or the amount of political contributions.
3. All of the candidates, again both Democrat and Repubican, are governed by these laws in their fund raising activities. All of those big donors to Republicans about whom Beutler speaks in his article have to comply with these laws. All of the big donors to the Clinton campaign are also supposed to comply with these laws.
4. Hillary Clinton's problems arise because she and her husband attempted to go around the campaign finance and federal ethics laws. Hillary is the only candidate in either party who did any of the following:
a. set up a charity to receive funds so that deductions would be tax deductible;
b. used a charity to receive the funds so that the donations would not be called campaign cash;
c. had cash directed to her by having her husband get overly large speaking fees as a conduit;
d. took cash from foreign donors who had business before her as Secretary of State;
e. promised to disclose all contributions from foreigners and then reneged on that vow;
f. directed lucrative contracts to mega-donors through Haitian relief agencies;
g. used a supposedly charitable organization to pay for pre-campaign costs; and
f. placed important staffers in jobs with supposed charities so that they could be compensated for campaign work while appearing not to be.
Maybe a simpler way to put this is that all the other candidates are following the law in raising campaign cash. Hillary Clinton appears to be in clear violation of the law.
No amount of nonsense from a place like The New Republic will change these facts. The Clintons and their allies cannot be allowed to muddy the waters or change the subject. Hillary has to come forward and explain to the American people why she has not committed criminal actions (if she can). Absent such an explanation, Hillary should be investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ.
Let's start with a few facts:
1. For the last hundred years at least, large donors to candidates in America's presidential campaigns have given cash, in part at least, to have future access to the next president. That is true for Democrats and for Republicans.
2. In the last few decades, there have been laws in place that control the manner of making or the amount of political contributions.
3. All of the candidates, again both Democrat and Repubican, are governed by these laws in their fund raising activities. All of those big donors to Republicans about whom Beutler speaks in his article have to comply with these laws. All of the big donors to the Clinton campaign are also supposed to comply with these laws.
4. Hillary Clinton's problems arise because she and her husband attempted to go around the campaign finance and federal ethics laws. Hillary is the only candidate in either party who did any of the following:
a. set up a charity to receive funds so that deductions would be tax deductible;
b. used a charity to receive the funds so that the donations would not be called campaign cash;
c. had cash directed to her by having her husband get overly large speaking fees as a conduit;
d. took cash from foreign donors who had business before her as Secretary of State;
e. promised to disclose all contributions from foreigners and then reneged on that vow;
f. directed lucrative contracts to mega-donors through Haitian relief agencies;
g. used a supposedly charitable organization to pay for pre-campaign costs; and
f. placed important staffers in jobs with supposed charities so that they could be compensated for campaign work while appearing not to be.
Maybe a simpler way to put this is that all the other candidates are following the law in raising campaign cash. Hillary Clinton appears to be in clear violation of the law.
No amount of nonsense from a place like The New Republic will change these facts. The Clintons and their allies cannot be allowed to muddy the waters or change the subject. Hillary has to come forward and explain to the American people why she has not committed criminal actions (if she can). Absent such an explanation, Hillary should be investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment