How should one think about the unfolding allegations rocking the Clinton Industrial Complex (which includes both her campaign and her foundation)?
By now you may have heard about Peter Schweizers book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
The book isnt even out yet and Clintons team is already sheltering in place like Churchills cabinet during the Blitz. Thats in part because Schweizer a conservative author and dogged investigative journalist has teamed up with notorious right-wing rags The New York Times and The Washington Post to essentially re-report and expand on allegations made in the book.
Because it would be absurd to claim that these papers are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- which wont stop flacks from saying it -- they are much better equipped to drop the payload over the target.
Even Lawrence ODonnell a Democratic water-carrier of such sterling reliability that he makes Gunga Din look like a slacker had to concede on MSNBCs Morning Joe that the Clinton campaign no longer has a Schweizer problem. It has a New York Times problem.
Its hard to boil down the Times deeply detailed account but the broad brushstrokes are as follows: A Canadian business wanted to sell its uranium mines in Kazakhstan and the U.S. to a Russian state-run -- i.e. Vladimir Putin-run -- firm. I know what youre thinking: What could go wrong?
In order to grease the skids -- allegedly of course -- Canadian uranium moguls Frank Giustra and Ian Telfer gave millions to the Clinton Foundation and arranged for $500000 speech by Bill Clinton (whose speaking fees mysteriously skyrocketed after his wife became secretary of state) bankrolled by a Russian investment bank with interests in the deal.
While in Kazakhstan former president Clinton agreed to hold a joint press conference with president-for-life Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. (Hes been getting re-elected with just shy of 100 percent of the vote since 1989.) Clinton generously praised Kazakhstans human rights record a propaganda gift of the first order. Days later Giustras deal was approved by the Kazakh government.
Also when she became secretary of state Hillary Clinton promised to disclose all such donations to the Clinton Foundation and submit her husbands foreign speeches for White House review. None of that happened.
There are other allegations in this story and more important there are many more such stories to come (according to several people whove read the book).
So again: How should we think about all of this? One place not to look for answers is the Clinton leviathan and its sundry remoras. For starters no matter what the allegation the Clinton response is always to shoot the messengers and point to the alleged misdeeds of somebody else.
They have other familiar tactics as well. With the Clintons the freshest evidence is instantly old news.
Theres also the long and storied Clinton fondness for lying. For instance nearly every claim in Hillarys press conference about her stealth server has been debunked starting with her insistence she followed all of the rules.
In short simply taking her word alone would be preposterous particularly for journalists who arent supposed to take any politicians word for anything even ones who dont suspiciously delete thousands of personal emails.
Still I suspect that the conclusion that this was all simply about payoffs probably misses the mark. Sure the Clintons like money. Thats obvious. But the money is incidental to whats really behind all of this: a mixture of entitlement and machine politics.
The Clintons are like the Tudors of the Ozarks. They believe they are royalty but they also understand that even monarchs need friends. The Clinton Foundation is the perfect vehicle for their ambition. Like the medieval Catholic Church it blurs the lines between ideals and interests. On the one hand it does yeomans work in the Church of Liberal Dogoodery but it also provides a conduit for business interests foreign governments academics activists and journalists to gain access to the imperial court-in-waiting.
Even if Hillary hadnt conveniently wiped her servers clean I suspect there wouldnt be a lot of emails about quid-pro-quos. Such transactions arent made in the language of the bazaar but in the lingua franca of loyalty friendship and noblesse oblige. Yes Clinton Inc. needs money but the money is likely seen more as tribute than bribery a bit of coin offered up as a sign of loyalty to the coming Ozarkian Restoration -- a restoration that may just have to wait for Chelsea.
How should one think about the unfolding allegations rocking the Clinton Industrial Complex (which includes both her campaign and her foundation)?
By now you may have heard about Peter Schweizers book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
The book isnt even out yet and Clintons team is already sheltering in place like Churchills cabinet during the Blitz. Thats in part because Schweizer a conservative author and dogged investigative journalist has teamed up with notorious right-wing rags The New York Times and The Washington Post to essentially re-report and expand on allegations made in the book.
Because it would be absurd to claim that these papers are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy -- which wont stop flacks from saying it -- they are much better equipped to drop the payload over the target.
Even Lawrence ODonnell a Democratic water-carrier of such sterling reliability that he makes Gunga Din look like a slacker had to concede on MSNBCs Morning Joe that the Clinton campaign no longer has a Schweizer problem. It has a New York Times problem.
Its hard to boil down the Times deeply detailed account but the broad brushstrokes are as follows: A Canadian business wanted to sell its uranium mines in Kazakhstan and the U.S. to a Russian state-run -- i.e. Vladimir Putin-run -- firm. I know what youre thinking: What could go wrong?
In order to grease the skids -- allegedly of course -- Canadian uranium moguls Frank Giustra and Ian Telfer gave millions to the Clinton Foundation and arranged for $500000 speech by Bill Clinton (whose speaking fees mysteriously skyrocketed after his wife became secretary of state) bankrolled by a Russian investment bank with interests in the deal.
While in Kazakhstan former president Clinton agreed to hold a joint press conference with president-for-life Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. (Hes been getting re-elected with just shy of 100 percent of the vote since 1989.) Clinton generously praised Kazakhstans human rights record a propaganda gift of the first order. Days later Giustras deal was approved by the Kazakh government.
Also when she became secretary of state Hillary Clinton promised to disclose all such donations to the Clinton Foundation and submit her husbands foreign speeches for White House review. None of that happened.
There are other allegations in this story and more important there are many more such stories to come (according to several people whove read the book).
So again: How should we think about all of this? One place not to look for answers is the Clinton leviathan and its sundry remoras. For starters no matter what the allegation the Clinton response is always to shoot the messengers and point to the alleged misdeeds of somebody else.
They have other familiar tactics as well. With the Clintons the freshest evidence is instantly old news.
Theres also the long and storied Clinton fondness for lying. For instance nearly every claim in Hillarys press conference about her stealth server has been debunked starting with her insistence she followed all of the rules.
In short simply taking her word alone would be preposterous particularly for journalists who arent supposed to take any politicians word for anything even ones who dont suspiciously delete thousands of personal emails.
Still I suspect that the conclusion that this was all simply about payoffs probably misses the mark. Sure the Clintons like money. Thats obvious. But the money is incidental to whats really behind all of this: a mixture of entitlement and machine politics.
The Clintons are like the Tudors of the Ozarks. They believe they are royalty but they also understand that even monarchs need friends. The Clinton Foundation is the perfect vehicle for their ambition. Like the medieval Catholic Church it blurs the lines between ideals and interests. On the one hand it does yeomans work in the Church of Liberal Dogoodery but it also provides a conduit for business interests foreign governments academics activists and journalists to gain access to the imperial court-in-waiting.
Even if Hillary hadnt conveniently wiped her servers clean I suspect there wouldnt be a lot of emails about quid-pro-quos. Such transactions arent made in the language of the bazaar but in the lingua franca of loyalty friendship and noblesse oblige. Yes Clinton Inc. needs money but the money is likely seen more as tribute than bribery a bit of coin offered up as a sign of loyalty to the coming Ozarkian Restoration -- a restoration that may just have to wait for Chelsea.
