Drip, Drip, Drip Go Clinton Revelations
“The steady drip, drip, drip about Hillary Clinton’s too-cozy relationships with big-time donors to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state continued unabated this week.” Thus starts a Boston Herald editorial.
“This is the week that the steady drip, drip, drip of details about Hillary Clinton’s server turned into a waterfall,” writes Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel. She continues, “This is the week that we finally learned why Mrs. Clinton used a private communications setup, and what it hid. This is the week, in short, that we found out that the infamous server was designed to hide that Mrs. Clinton for three years served as the U.S. Secretary of the Clinton Foundation.”
Washington Examiner columnist Lisa Boothe echoes Strassel’s assessment: “As the drip, drip, drip of information highlighting the intersection between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department surfaces, the political fallout for Hillary Clinton is unavoidable. The newly exposed emails demonstrate another lie told by the Clinton campaign. Despite her lawyers stating that only 30,000 emails on her server were related to work, the 15,000 puts that number closer to 45,000. But more importantly, it paints a clearer picture of what Hillary Clinton was attempting to hide by setting up private servers in the first place and attempting to wipe them clean.”
Bloomberg columnist Albert Hunt writes, “The latest flap is the Clintons’ contention that using the private e-mail was suggested by a predecessor, Colin Powell. There may have been a Powell suggestion — he says he doesn’t recall — but she decided to use the private system much more extensively and exclusively than Powell did. She didn’t do it for convenience; she did it for reasons of secrecy.”
If Hillary Clinton didn’t have a private server set up in her home for the purpose of secrecy, then what legitimate reason did she have for doing so?
Thus far, her defenders haven’t offered a legitimate reason. Instead, they simply maintain that what Clinton did was grubby but not illegal. Writes New York Magazine columnist Jonathan Chait, “The Clinton Foundation is hardly a large or unique source of corruption in American politics. It is, however, a source of grubby, low-level access headaches. That is the takeaway from the latest batch of State Department emails. The emails do not show that Clinton Foundation donors received any policy favors from Hillary Clinton or other elected officials. What they show is that people who donated to the foundation believed they were owed favors by Clinton’s staffers, and at least one of those staffers — the odious Doug Band — shared this belief.”
The attempt to clean up this particular Clinton mess isn’t making the situation for Clinton any better. A USA Today editorial says the following:
“On Monday, former president Bill Clinton belatedly announced plans to tighten the ethical safeguards for the Clinton Foundation, the family charity, to eliminate “legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest.” The plans range from the laughable to the laudable, and they are woefully incomplete. Changing the foundation’s name from the “Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation” to the “Clinton Foundation” will convince precisely zero people that everything is on the up and up. Taking Bill off the board and ending his official fundraising role won’t stop people from trying to buy access through the foundation. Ending foreign and corporate contributions is a good step, but allowing them to continue at least through the first week of November looks more like an influence-peddling fire sale (Give while you still can!) than a newfound commitment to clean government.”
Even if the Clinton Foundation were changed to remove the Clintons from its management, the dripping of Clinton revelations would still continue. Reuters reports, “A judge on Thursday ordered the U.S. State Department to determine whether it has found any new emails between Hillary Clinton and the White House from the week after the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, and to release any such documents by Sept. 13.”