Bill Clinton

Clinton Cash: An update

Featured image The New York Post celebrates Madam Hillary’s rollout rerun with an update from Peter Schweizer on Clinton Cash: Bloomberg and the Washington Post…drilled down and discovered an additional 1,100 hidden foreign Clinton Foundation donations. Since the revelation, the Foundation has only released 24 of the secret foreign donors. When will Americans see the remaining 1,076 names? Hillary hasn’t said. And thanks to the Huffington Post, we now know that in »

Where there’s corruption, there’s the Clinton Foundation

Featured image Bill Clinton is unsurpassed at spotting and exploiting corrupt entities. This ability forms the subtext of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer’s expose of the Clinton Foundation. If there is a corrupt government with which to engage in mutual backscratching, Bill Clinton will find it. Before long, a Clinton Foundation supporter will have obtained concessions from the government; Clinton will have obtained lucrative speaking fees generated by both the supporter (who will »

Return to Stephanopoulos

Featured image George Stephanopoulos acted as an advocate for the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation when Peter Schweizer appeared to discuss his book Clinton Cash on This Week with the Democratic Operative. I noted Stephanopoulos’s absurd pose that Sunday in “For the Clinton defense.” Subsequent reporting by the Washington Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles dug out Stephanopoulos’s undisclosed contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Asked for comment by Stiles when the story was ready »

Is Hillary’s Candidacy Just Another Business Deal?

Featured image Jennifer Rubin notes this morning that Hillary’s obviously terrible campaign skills are getting noticed in the mainstream media. It’s so bad that Hillary is actually going to launch her campaign a second time next month with a big public rally. It is said that a lot of second- and third-tier Republican candidates (Carson, Huckabee, Fiorina, etc) are only running to enable them to get nice post-campaign media contracts from Fox »

Weasel words from a weasel

Featured image ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos failed to disclose his $75,000 in contributions and other connections to the Clinton Foundation as he interrogated Peter Schweizer regarding his book Clinton Cash. He didn’t mention his work as a campaign operative and administration official on behalf of Bill Clinton either, but ABC viewers are apparently assumed to bring that knowledge to the table. (Wrong, but who are we to judge?) When Stephanopoulos’s contributions »

A Stephanopoulos sidebar

Featured image George Stephanopoulos is a Democratic operative in the guise of a television journalist. He served Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign in a senior position and was duly rewarded with a high office advising Clinton as president. When he grilled Peter Schweizer on his reportage in Clinton Cash, however, Stephanopoulos mentioned none of this. Stephanopoulos omitted any mention of his own service over a period of years directly on behalf of »

This Week with the Democratic Operative, spit-take edition

Featured image I wrote about the interview conducted with Peter Schweizer by George Stephanopoulos in “For the Clinton defense.” Toward the end of the interview, Stephanopoulous suggested that Schweizer’s work in the Bush administration somehow discredits his research. I thought that was funny, because his past work for President Bush put Schweizer at more than one remove from a direct interest in the subject of the book, whereas Stepanopoulos had worked directly »

How the Clintons worked Haiti

Featured image Mary Anastasia O’Grady extends one prong of Peter Schweizer’s case against the Clintons in Clinton Cash. O’Grady has previously explored the unsavory Clinton angle in the reconstruction of Haiti following the 2010 earthquake. Schweizer’s book prompts O’Grady to revisit her own reportage in this week’s Wall Street Journal Americas column “How the Clintons worked the angles in Haiti” (accessible here via Google). O’Grady reports: [I]n the aftermath of the January »

A word from Peter Schweizer

Featured image Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer emailed me last night to comment on “Frank Holmes’s Purple Haze.” I thought readers following the story might find his message of interest: Love the “Purple Haze” reference. Fantastic! By the way, the Breitbart story on this includes a link to Frank Holmes’s SEC filing that confirms that the firm did indeed have $4 million in stock in Uranium One. Also note that Holmes is »

Frank Holmes’s purple haze

Featured image In the long New York Times story by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, following up on Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash, it is reported that U.S. Global Investors owned $4.7 million in shares of Uranium One during the first quarter of 2011. A Russian company took a controlling stake in Uranium One in 2010. The Russian acquisition stood to benefit the owners of the company’s stock if it secured the approval »

Bubbaships and Double Standards, Take 2

Featured image Anyone else remember how liberals moaned that Ed Meese shouldn’t be confirmed to be attorney general back in 1986 because of the appearance of impropriety? In fact, the phrase really took off after some shmoe named Joe Biden lectured Meese that he “must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” (Whatever happened to that guy, by the way?) If that was the standard, the Clintons should have been run out of »

Bubbaships and Double Standards*

Featured image I know it’s a favorite saying around here that if liberals didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all.  But seriously—the Clintons really abuse the liberal privilege. The astounding revelations of Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash are causing me to have flashbacks to the 1990s, and such sterling paragons of commercial virtue like Marc Rich, the Riadys of Indonesia, assorted impecunious Buddhist monks who nonetheless managed to max »

“Clinton Cash”: Disputations

Featured image Peter Schweizer generated an enormous amount of publicity for Clinton Cash before its official publication this past Tuesday. The prepublication publicity included the related New York Times story by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire “Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian uranium deal.” The Times has gone silent since the publication of that story. The Clinton machine is now cranking up the war room to hit back. The participation of »

The full Clinton

Featured image Below is the May 4 Today Show segment featuring Cynthia McFadden’s interview with Bill Clinton in Africa. In the interview McFadden asks Clinton questions related to the controversy generated by Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash and related news stories. The segment is only seven minutes long and the interview a bit chopped, with footage of Clinton doing his good deeds in Africa thrown into the mix. Even though Clinton’s comments in »

Bill Clinton explains, as only he can

Featured image When Sharyl Attkisson was rolling out Stonewalled, Kyle Smith wrote an excellent preview of the book for the New York Post. Yesterday he performed the same service for Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash, which is to be published tomorrow. Smith’s New York Post column on Schweizer’s book is “Hill and Bill can’t hide from shady deals exposed in ‘Clinton Cash.’” Quotable quote: “The Clinton Foundation is run about as forthrightly as »

The Clinton Foundation — a “slush fund for the Clintons”

Featured image The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month, the New York Post reports. Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” Instead, it placed the Foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The »

For the Clinton defense

Featured image On ABC’s This Week today, George Stephanopoulos grilled Peter Schweizer on the stories generated by his forthcoming book, Clinton Cash (transcript here, video below). Toward the end of the interview, Stephanopoulous suggested that Schweizer’s work in the Bush administration somehow discredits his research. Is this some kind of a joke? Schweizer’s research stands or falls on facts, inferences, evidence of Clinton lies and perhaps further investigation, as Peter himself suggests. »