PowerLine – Is the Clinton Foundation hurting Hillary’s campaign?

PowerLine –  Is the Clinton Foundation hurting Hillary’s campaign?

Is the Clinton Foundation hurting Hillary’s campaign?

Is the Clinton Foundation hurting Hillary’s campaign?

Posted: 28 Jan 2016 08:56 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Politico reports that supporters of Crooked Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign increasing see The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation as a “distraction.” Accordingly, says reporter Kenneth Vogel, the Foundation is considering dialing back its activity during the campaign.

In response to what Vogel calls “donor wariness,” the Clinton Foundation commissioned a study from the powerhouse Boston Consulting Group on how to improve its showcase endeavor, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). In this context, “improve” apparently means, at least in part, making it less “showy.”

Vogel describes the donor wariness this way:

Supporters of Crooked Hillary Clinton’s campaign privately grumble that the foundation is diverting the attention of Bill Clinton, her former president husband — as well as key donors — at a pivotal moment in the presidential campaign. They argue that CGI should suspend planned events during the primaries and just before the general election.

“Gosh, can’t they relax a bit on that work and focus on winning Iowa?” said one bundler. “But everyone is resigned to how they function, and presumes they know what they are doing.”

I’m not sure about “they,” but Bill Clinton clearly knows what he’s doing. According to Vogel:

With a week to go until Iowa’s pivotal caucuses, Crooked Hillary Clinton was holding a series of events in the frigid state, while Bill Clinton, her top surrogate, was in the sunny California desert presiding over a golf tournament in which the foundation is a partner and an annual foundation healthcare conference.

And next week ― soon after the caucus and just a few days before the New Hampshire primary ― CGI is holding a major gathering in Manhattan slated to be headlined by Bill and Chelsea Clinton, the foundation’s vice chair who is assuming an increasingly prominent role in both the foundation’s affairs and her mother’s campaign.

In my view, the most serious problem surrounding the Clinton Foundation isn’t its showy events or its competition with Hillary’s campaign for Bill’s attention. Rather, it’s the way the Clintons used the Foundation to enrich themselves by leveraging Hillary’s position as Secretary of State. Peter Schweizer documented this scandal in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

This story receives scant attention now, having been pushed to the sidelines by the email scandal. However, there is at least one report that the FBI is investigating the “Clinton cash” scandal along with the emails.

Hillary’s backers have more to be nervous about than glitzy Foundation events and Bill’s preference for golfing (and whatever else) over campaigning.

William McKinley’s triumph in Karl Rove’s words

Posted: 28 Jan 2016 08:07 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Yesterday, in recommending Karl Rove’s book The Triumph of William McKinley, Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters, I mentioned Rove’s discussion of the book at AEI. As a devotee of C-SPAN’s Booknotes, I’ve heard countless authors discuss their babies (I mean books). I can’t recall a better such presentation than Rove’s.

Scott found the event on YouTube and you can watch it below. The question about the role of money (not currency) in the 1896 election at around the 1:12:00 mark is from me.

The Fun Indicator, Rubio Edition

Posted: 28 Jan 2016 07:55 AM PST

(Steven Hayward)

A couple weeks ago I mentioned “The Fun Indicator,” which suggested that the candidate and campaign that is having the most fun often turns out to be the winning campaign. And the person obviously having the most fun this cycle is Donald Trump. But don’t count out Marco Rubio, who stars in this new video, which has an awesome collection of cameos and inside jokes with the joke (especially Senator Inhofe’s snowballs):

Regrets, Clinton style

Posted: 28 Jan 2016 06:34 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

The mind-boggling story of Hillary’s Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official business during her tenure as Secretary of State tells us over and over again why Clinton is unfit to hold any office involving public trust. She is oblivious to any interest but her own and unconstrained by any fidelity to facts. She lies with pathological abandon.

Will she ever be held to account by a competent journalist, let alone law enforcement, for her exposure of highly classified information to hostile powers resulting from her use of the server? The odds are not good. On Meet the Press this past Sunday, for example, Chuck Todd could only rouse himself to ask her: “Are you concerned?”

Once upon a time not so very long ago, Clinton described her use a private, insecure email system while secretary of state as “an error in judgment.” During CNN’s town hall, however, she declined to go so far. Now she says she didn’t do anything wrong.

On Tuesday in Iowa Clinton met with the editors of the Quad-City Times. One of the editors quizzed Clinton about the apparent contradiction. She explained that the contradiction was only seeming. She hadn’t really done anything wrong; she was sorry if she upset you. “Well — you know — look,” she explained, “I just think it was a mistake because it’s caused all this uproar and commotion.”

PJ Media’s Debra Heine provides this transcript (audio below):

QUAD-CITY TIMES: “So it was a mistake because of the reaction”


QCT: “Not because it would have made sense to use a work email for work purposes?”

CLINTON: “It made sense – look, look – I know that this remains a subject of some interest, obviously. You’re asking me, they asked me last night. The facts have not changed. …”

Clinton added that “it was a mistake” because she had to “go through all of this” and she didn’t “want to go through it. I don’t want to put a lot of my friends through it.” Because she’s just that kind of person.

Listen to her tone of voice and the audacity of her lies. Now hear this:

From the NAS

Posted: 28 Jan 2016 05:28 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

National Association of Scholars executive director Ashley Thorne writes to note that NAS has just published a long, formal statement by NAS president Peter Wood about academic and intellectual freedom. It runs close to 11,000 words and is the most extensive statement NAS has ever made on the subject. Ashley adds:

This is a long-meditated response to the Black Lives Matter/cry-bully protests and the anemic responses of many college presidents and non-responses of many college boards of trustees. Peter saw the need for a framework that crisply lays out how intellectual freedom should work in relation to the other foundational principles of the university, and that’s what he has attempted here.

While the statement is of most direct relevance to faculty members, administrators, and trustees, it is a useful document for conscientious citizens as well—for anyone who cares about the true purposes of college education at a time when so many colleges have lost sight of their missions. So I thought the Power Line community might like to consider it.

Wood’s timely statement is posted as “The architecture of intellectual freedom.” It warrants our attention and consideration.

Leave a Reply