If you've ever wondered how someone who is supposedly "flat broke" can have hundreds of millions of dollars and can run for president later on, the answer might require reading a how-to book. No, not the Millionaire Next Door. That's penny ante stuff.
The real money is in access:
“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.
This dispatch isn't coming from Fox News, either. It's coming from the New York Times, the reflexive defender of Democrats everywhere. And the Times can't easily dismiss the work:
But whether Mr. Schweizer’s book can deliver the same sales is not clear. He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons.
His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”
In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes.
The revelations won't matter if the Clintons can get by with the "old story" dodge. That's worked before, but it might not this time, and the Times article explains why:
“Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.
Just a guess -- the Times and the Post will try to find exculpatory stories. Fox News will try to nail the Clintons to the wall. Who will be more successful? Place your bets.
2 comments:
Speaking for myself and no small number of liberals in my social circles...Ms. Clinton has a number of problems, here. The "flat broke" comment grated on me when she made it...generally speaking, you have to be really rich to go $10m in the hole. And having that debt secured against a guaranteed lifetime of commanding six-figure speaking fees is pretty much the antithesis of "flat broke".
(Also, taking fracking global, agitating for war with Syria, and probably a couple of other things I'm forgetting right now.)
Honestly, I'm pretty checked out of this whole thing until I see who the Greens and the LP nominate.
Not to go out of character, but given how Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ended up with bupkus in his bank account after 20 years in the NBA, I can see how Ms. Rodham could describe herself as flat broke. If they'd been a flop on the rubber chicken circuit, it would have been bad.
On the flip side, explaining the ....interesting correlations... in foreign policy as money came in to the family foundation might even get the attention of the Times and Post.
Post a Comment