Image 01 Image 03

NBC gives Clinton Foundation the sideeye

NBC gives Clinton Foundation the sideeye

“The appearance of it is terrible.”

When you’ve lost Chuck Todd, you’ve lost them all, Hil.

Yesterday, Kemberlee Kaye covered the New York Times’ nuclear bomb of a story about the Clinton Foundation’s alleged status as a go between for a US-Russia uranium transfer. (Read the whole thing for background.) The piece went viral, candidates and pundits had a field day, and then…the unthinkable happened.

NBC News’ Chuck Todd officially gave the Clinton establishment the sideeye.


Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

Look, for the life of me, and this is just political judgment, the Obama administration when they offered her the job looked at the [Clinton] Foundation and said, boy, there will be the appearance of influence. We better be careful here.

[Former Senator] Dick Lugar, at the time, ranking member of the [Senate] Foreign Relations [Committee], even said very publicly, you know, it’s going to look like foreign governments can buy access to you because of the foundation. How many more warnings did the Clintons need to have and yet they ended up doing these things. Look, I hear what David [Axelrod] is saying, and clearly he is right. There is not proof, it’s sort of circumstantial scandal.

This scandal isn’t just weeks or months in the making—it’s years in the making. The fact that the Obama administration flipped on the green light for Hillary Clinton highlights a systemic problem with the political culture surrounding the Clintons. They’ve managed to make themselves appear to be so bulletproof as to make the President of the United States feel comfortable with getting cozy with yet another corrupt politician whose tentacles reach much further than the distance from Capitol Hill to the White House.

The question I have is it’s politically though just dumb and inept. And I guess — somebody I read the other day, I can’t remember who it was, said there is something about the way President Clinton has operated in his post-presidency that’s simply been sloppy. What’s he doing hanging out with the questionable president of Kazakhstan? You know, and taking money to do things like that?

Never underestimate the importance of 1) having political savvy, and 2) employing your political savvy even after your time in the spotlight is over. (I suppose you could argue that the Clintons are and always will be in the spotlight, but once you’re the former president, the thing dims.) Even if for the sake of argument we weren’t dealing with corruption, and instead just a hopelessly stupid pair of wannabe-diplomat/philanthropists, this should still worry the hell out of everyone with a brain. This level of sloppy should be reserved for…the intern cubicle. On behalf of the intern you fire.

I understand he may rationalize it and say, yeah, you know, what we’ll use this money for good, they’re not buying influence from me, I don’t care. But, boy, the appearance of it is terrible. And I kind of think — I’m surprised someone hasn’t come out and said, you know what, no foreign governments for any presidential libraries. Bush libraries have been built by foreign money, Clinton library and foundation by foreign money. The appearance is just too awful.

In this world, appearance is everything. If I’m sitting at the head of a government in Europe or Asia, I’m not going to look kindly on a candidate that bounces around with “questionable” figureheads—and we shouldn’t either. Pulling the “I don’t CARE how it looks” gymnastics routine is a feat usually reserved for the intern you just fired for being sloppy, not a former president and his prodigiously ambitious wife.

Todd may have lobbed up Axelrod’s “circumstantial scandal” talking point, but that doesn’t take away from the overall effect of what he’s saying about the Clinton brand.

The Clinton brand is damaged at a level that even the most skilled crisis manager may not be able to completely salvage. I say “completely” because I don’t expect this to be the nail in the Team Hillary coffin; election season is one big troll on America’s emotional stability, and I won’t be surprised to see international bribery and corruption presented as par for the course when one is such a dedicated advocate for The People©.

All we can do is make sure it doesn’t go away—so that’s what we’ll do.

Keep digging.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Hillary’s toast. She is GOING to now draw some opposition for the nomination.

She WILL have to face all this…and the coming…crap in debates where she can’t hide behind surrogates and apologists.

THEN she will have to face MORE debates by people who are morally, ethically, and politically her enemies.

And all during this process, the press will continue to grind the grist. The Clintons and their myrmidons have made the mistake of attacking their erstwhile buds in the Mushroom Media, and they will just naturally have to push back. The NYT will not put up with Media Mutters (to itself in a dark, dank basement) attacking it.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | April 24, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    Don’t want to toot my own horn… so I’ll toot yours. If I recall correctly, we both predicted – 2 yrs ago? – that Hillary would eventually fall to her mounting scandals and the virtual certainty there would be many more, big and small. If I recall, reaction was some agreement, but a lot of ‘you guys are wishful thinking’ replies.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 24, 2015 at 3:16 pm

      Yeah, we good, we DOWN…we…something…

      I still worry about MoooOOOooochelle coming out of left field (see what I did there?).

        creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | April 25, 2015 at 7:49 am

        You should worry more about Liawatha.

        I see your troll is still with you. Thought for a while there it might be gone. No such luck.

Can anyone imagine what Hillary could speak about worth 200K and up that nobody already knew?

The only reason a former political office holder and future presidential candidate like Hillary would get paid big bucks for a speech is for the purchase of favors. Hillary and Bill both were soliciting bribes. Say it like it is, Chuck.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to McAllister. | April 24, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Not entirely. Sometimes the hosting agency pays those exorbitant fees to attract targeted attendees, essentailly selling access to the Clintons, but without the Clintons necessarily promising any quid pro quo. (That comes later when less witnesses around, lol).

Elizabeth Warren is 65 and her star’s never been brighter to the progs. 69 is too old, 73 is even older. She has to run this time. The only reason the media is going to talk up Hillary weaknesses is to either eliminate them before a general election or because they don’t think she can win/they’d rather someone else win. No one’s a bigger friend to Democrats than NBC of the major networks. If they’re turning eyes towards Hillary it’s not an accident.

Henry Hawkins | April 24, 2015 at 2:59 pm

I applaud the left-wing media for finally internalizing the obvious after 25 years. RELEASE THE CHEROKEE.

My question is, what happens if Hillary is cast aside, and the Clintons blame the party? What will happen with their supporters?

pablo panadero | April 24, 2015 at 3:31 pm

I wish this were coming out six months from now, after Hillary sucked a billion dollars from Democratic donors. I guess that is why the push is on now by the left, as the bench is quite empty.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | April 24, 2015 at 3:35 pm

I was about to vehemently assert that Hillary *can’t* be toppled. The Clinton influence is too strong and nasty to anyone who stands against them.

But actually …

Didn’t the lefties already topple Hillary using an unknown one-term Senator from Ill in 2008? Why should this cycle be any different?

Obama has a proven track record of “ruining” things according to plan. He allegedly hates the Clintons. Could he possibly have set them up by making Hillary SoS, knowing that the Clintons would step in it and ruin Hil’s bid for the presidency? Did he give them an opportunity to screw the pooch, knowing that, because they’re the Clintons, they would?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 24, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    I’ll bet $5000 the Obama team has all the evidence it needs to take down Hillary if they want. You have got to know they took copies of everything with Hillary’s name or fingerprints. I’ll bet they have copies of every email she erased. That’s exactly how they do things and Hillary was an enemy to be kept close by making her S of S. No way they just let her rip at State without documenting everything they could.

But, once again, all together now “… Bush did it too, he built a library with foreign money.” (Insider tip, it’s watermarked on their stationery and note pads.)

Hillary will stay in the race until the bitter end, because the presidency is seen as hers to lose, and as long as she is in the running Bill and Chelsea can haul in the cash.

I see an non-Hillary ‘Rat nominee next year. The presidency was hers to lose in ’08, and while she has ardent supporters and many who fear her, those weren’t enough to prevent Obama’s corruption of the ‘Rat state caucus system and dazzling of the weak-minded party faithful who have been conditioned to worship well read leftist platitudes and saw a bigger prize with a metrosexual Kenyan. And they were right in knowing that the ‘Icans would not have the courage or organizational skills to meaningfully confront Obama, regardless of how corrupt and incompetent he was. But, Obama wouldn’t have won the ’08 nomination if there hadn’t been a firm and influential anti-Hillary faction. That faction exists today, as evidenced by the media picking up on the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play scandal. The media has demonstrated a willingness to cover up the most egregious progressive scandals, even Benghazi, undoubtedly because Obama’s hands are as dirty as Hillary’s on that one. As soon as any semi-viable ‘Rat candidate announces, the anti-Hillary ‘Rats will flock to him/her.

It can be very unhealthy to be on the Clintons’ enemies list, so expect this scandal to grow legs in the hope of encouraging a viable alternate to step forward and get the ball rolling.