THE CLINTON FOUNDATION ETHICAL MORASS: EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES IS NOTICING (AND WORRYING)

How significant are Hillary Clinton’s ties to the The Clinton Foundation and its ethical morass?

So significant that even the New York Times is scared of what it means to Ms. Clinton’s presidential campaign.

How scared?  Read the following excerpts from today’s lead editorial and see for yourself – paying special attention to the parts I have put in bold print:

Does the new batch of previously undisclosed State Department emails prove that big-money donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation got special favors from Mrs. Clinton while she was secretary of state?

Not so far, but that the question arises yet again points to a need for major changes at the foundation now, before the November election.

When Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state, the Obama administration tried to draw a line between the foundation, particularly its foreign-government sponsors, and her role. The new emails underscore that this effort was at best partly successful. “Pay-to-play” charges by Donald Trump have not been proved. But the emails and previous reporting suggest Mr. Trump has reason to say that while Mrs. Clinton was secretary, it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began.

The newly disclosed emails show that some foundation donors and friends, like Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain,used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton.

The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity. If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries. Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton.

An “ethical imperative for Ms. Clinton” to sever all ties with the foundation?  NOW, after FOUR YEARS AS SECRETARY OF STATE, during which it is eminently clear she combined donations with political favors?

If it is an ethical imperative for her now, what the bleep was it then?

What you are seeing is not a sincere editorial.  It is a dire warning that Ms. Clinton had damn well better get in front of this Foundation issue before it takes her down………assuming the email scandal doesn’t do it first.

If this were, say, the New York Post, which can’t stand Hillary Clinton, that would be one thing.  But this is the New York Times, which adores Hillary Clinton and can’t stand Donald Trump.

That should tell you plenty about how significant this really is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *