This piece is being compiled on the eve of the release of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
Before his newest book is even released, Peter Schweizer has a best seller on his hands in no small part thanks to a media firestorm surrounding whether or not the Clinton Foundation reported all of their donors while Hillary was Secretary of State to the Obama Administration.
The frenzy started when The New York Times reviewed an advance copy of Schweizer’s book two weeks ago and Fox News began to tease tidbits of the scoop Schweizer is about to unleash. Over the last fortnight, spokespeople at the White House and the State Department have had nothing to say about whether or not Hillary Clinton honored a complete disclosure agreement with Barack Obama by having the Clinton Foundation release the names of all donors. At the State Department today, this became a serious bone of contention with the new meat State is throwing at the wolves. His name is Jeff Rathke, and he is just as clueless as the barbies, I mean Jen Psaki and Marie Harf.
The question of transparency – even when it applies to Hillary Clinton – is alive for these reporters, and they are not getting answers, and the press corps is not amused since a blockbuster story from the New York Times last weekend dug a bit deeper on the Clinton Cash claim that 1,100 donors to Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), a Canadian non-profit, were not disclosed to the Obama Administration in relation to a company called Uranium One. The reason given was that Canadian law forbids this, a claim that was thoroughly debunked by Canadian officials. (Read the DC Gazette report on that here.)
All of this came on the heels of server-gate, or the scandal of Hillary Clinton handing a clean server to the Special Committee on Benghazi claiming that only the personal emails had been deleted and that anything state department related was in the hands of either the state department or the Benghazi committee, a claim that only the hardest core Clinton supporters can defend (and not very effectively). No less than James Carville, and David Brock were dispatched to do damage control and even MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough didn’t believe them.
And then there is the entire idea that the Clintons would be held to a higher standard, something that any person in media with a shred of integrity knows is not true, and that the Morning Joe crowd has been debunking for weeks. This morning it was Mark Halperin’s turn in the hot seat.
There it is again: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS OF YET that the Clintons did anything that would constitute conflict of interest. (Well, not when they destroyed it.) That’s the same mantra that is said any time the Clintons are accused of any sort of wrongdoing.
To add fuel to the fire, Bill Clinton commented this morning on the scandal. “The foundation made mistakes in terms of disclosure.” That doesn’t mean he didn’t dig the hole deeper.
What is becoming very obvious is that the teflon surrounding the Clintons is wearing off, and that the most liberal of the news media that defended them for so very long are having a far more difficult time doing so when one scandal after another with absolutely no shreds of evidence proving innocence or exonerating wrongdoing is offered up for consumption. Ron Fourier of National Journal is the most heartbroken, but even he cannot defend wiping a private email server clean that supposedly was used for official government business and then claiming that no evidence exists as a defense for scandal.