I’m pretty good at making predictions. Except when I’m not.
About two years before the 2008 Presidential election, I predicted it would be John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton (I got half of that one right). I predicted Republicans would take back the House in 2010 (we did). And I predicted Republicans would win back the Senate in 2014 (we did). And the week after the 2012 Presidential election, I predicted that the 2016 Presidential race would see Hillary vs. Marco Rubio. (Time will tell.)
It used to seem like the Rubio pick was the tougher call to make. After all, there will likely be more than a dozen or so credible Republican choices. And on the Democratic side, well let’s face it, there was – Hillary.
For the first time in a long time, I’m starting to think, I’m not so sure about Hillary anymore. This “Clinton Cash” scandal looks like it might be the real thing. If the allegations turn out to be true, it looks terrible.
In essence, what happened according to investigative reporter Peter Schwiezer in his soon-to-come-out book “Clinton Cash”, foreign governments and foreign businesses donated millions and millions of dollars to Bill and Hillary Clinton, or to their Foundation, expecting and getting favorable treatment by Hillary’s State Department in return. If this proves to be true, it is inappropriate, unethical, and illegal. Typically, some foreign entity wanting special treatment from Hillary’s State Department, would give Bill Clinton $500,000 or $1 million to give a speech. This wasn’t a onetime thing. There are approximately a dozen examples of this, if true, inexcusable behavior.
Some of the countries involved were Columbia, Haiti, and perhaps the most egregious, a uranium deal involving Russia and Canada. According to the New York Times (not a bastion of conservatism) Hillary’s State Department gave the go-ahead to Russia to purchase a Canadian company which mined uranium in the U.S. and all around the world, thus in effect cornering the world uranium market. This obviously could have significant national security ramifications. (But the Clintons got paid, so who cares?)
It might be easier to prove definitively what Hillary knew, and when she knew it, by reviewing her emails. But of course she erased them.
Not unexpectedly, the Clinton defenders are already engaged in a full court press of diversion, denial, and counter-attack. Principal among the Clinton defenders has been former Clinton special council, Lanny Davis. According to him, the whole thing is much ado about nothing.
But perhaps the most embarrassing performance by a former Clinton staffer, who is now supposed to be an unbiased news reporter for ABC News, was George Stephanopoulos’s rabidly partisan grilling of Clinton Cash author Peter Schwiezer this past Sunday. Here is a sampling of Stephanopoulos’s “unbiased” cross examination:
Schwiezer had perfectly reasonable responses to all these “when did you stop beating your wife” questions, but I don’t think Clinton attack dog Stephanopoulos was much persuaded.
I find it particularly interesting how Clinton defenders like George Stephanopoulos see fit to excuse questionable behavior by the Clintons, while not giving a similar break to others allegedly committing similar transgressions, like former Republican Governor Bob McDonald of Virginia, whose wife accepted gifts for alleged favors, and Democratic Senator Bob Menendez who similarly allegedly did favors for his eye doctor in return for campaign cash. Menendez’ mistake was being on the “wrong” side of the Obama Administration’s Iran and Cuba policies.
Anyway, the allegations against Hillary and Bill seem pretty serious to me. If they did what they are accused of doing, it could be fatal for Hillary’s Presidential campaign. However, the Obama Justice Department has proved anything but impartial, and a mainstream press that’s historically had a double standard for the treatment of Democrats vs. Republicans, also calls into doubt whether the Clintons will ever have to answer for their apparent corruption.
Only time will tell.
