Nowhere To Hide

     I normally tune out reports of political scandals with a shrug and a muttered “That’s just what they do,” but I must admit I’m taking considerable pleasure out of the steadily intensifying hurricane at whose center stands She Who Must Be President, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

     [Bonus points to whoever spots and reports the social faux pas in the previous paragraph.]

     According to a very recent survey, Mrs. Clinton is not generally deemed honest:

     Currently, 45 percent of voters think Clinton is honest. That’s mostly unchanged from last month, but down 9 points from 54 percent a year ago (April 2014). She lost ground among men (-10 points), women (-9 points) and Democrats (-7 points). Moreover, only 33 percent of independents see Clinton as honest. That’s down 13 points since last year.

     Overall, Clinton’s honesty score is negative six (45 percent “yes, she is” minus 51 percent “no, she isn’t”)

     But the perception of honesty is a complex thing. It partakes of several factors, of which one’s known deceits are only one. Perhaps more important than one’s record of deceit is one’s demonstrated attitude of superiority and entitlement:

     “I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.” -- First Lady Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents in 1998

     “I have said that I’m not running and I’m having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator.” -- Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), commenting on her presidential ambitions when speaking at the National Press Club, July 20, 2001

     “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." -- on visiting Bosnia in 1996, contradicting other accounts that said there was no threat of gunfire. Clinton later said she "misspoke:"

     “On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren‘t in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book. And you know, I‘m embarrassed by it. I‘m very sorry I said it. I have said that, you know, it just didn‘t jive with what I had written about and knew to be the truth.” -- after Bill Clinton claimed Hillary apologized for lying about her trip to Bosnia

     “We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.” “Government” meaning “Hillary R. Clinton.”

     "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." – From a speech opposing George W. Bush’s tax cuts, 2004. Note the use of the royal “we.”

     "If I didn't kick his ass every day, he wouldn't be worth anything." -- on Bill Clinton

     But Mrs. Clinton has always known which side of her bread is buttered, and whenever he’s come under an unfavorable lens, she’s protected him with unrelenting ferocity:

     "Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody's going to believe them." --on Bill Clinton's bimbo eruptions

     “From my perspective, this is part of the continuing political campaign against my husband… I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.” -- Reacting to truthful reports that her husband, Bill Clinton, had had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky; Interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's Today show (27 January 1998)

     "My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me." – to political confidant Bob Barnett, shortly before Bill’s admission of his infidelities with Monica Lewinsky, 1998

     Would any of this be deemed acceptable from a Republican candidate for president – say, from Carly Fiorina?

     But we’ve hardly scratched the surface.

---

     The recent book Clinton Cash has catapulted the Clinton machine into defensive mode. Their spokespeople are laagering up around the candidate with the usual dismissals and deflections:

• “That’s old news.”
• “This is normal for an election cycle.”
• “It’s just the Republican attack machine.”

     ...and so forth. However, those tactics only work if the Main Stream Media are willing to collaborate...and this time around, that’s dubious:

     The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

     The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

     But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

     At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One....

     As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

     And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock....

     Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

     In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

     That report was written by Times reporter Jo Becker. Here are Clinton Cash author Schweitzer and reporter Becker in person:

     When the Gray Lady refuses its protection to a Democrat – especially a Democrat deemed the front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination – that Democrat has nowhere to hide.

---

     In part, the intensity of this scandal can be attributed to the fault lines within the Democratic Party. The Obamas and the Clintons are separated by a considerable gulf. Yes, both are filled with the sense of superiority and entitlement. However, as rivals for the control of the party, they have been at odds since Obama first appeared on the national stage. More, the Obamas are far more committed to the social-fascist ideology than are the Clintons, who will say and do anything that maintains and increases their power and pelf. Note how scrupulously the Obama apparatus has maintained its distance from the mounting storm of criticism.

     Many in the Right have commented that the Uranium One scandal could sink the Clinton candidacy. Perhaps it could...but we have more than a year of campaigning for the nomination to endure, and 18 months before the final ballots are cast. The “old news / Republican attack machine” ploy might yet work for the Clintons.

     Our obligation is to keep all the reports of Clintonian untruths and misdeeds alive and growing – not because whoever the Republicans nominate is guaranteed to do much to restore Constitutional governance, but because when a political kingpin is brought down in a maximally tawdry display, he invariably pulls a great part of the political elite with him. Remember Warren Harding and Albert Fall.

     In politics, the fall, just like the rot, starts at the top.