Clinton Foundation stories: why Hillary campaign can't dismiss them
| Washington
It鈥檚 been a bad week for Hillary Clinton, news-wise. There鈥檚 been an outpouring of stories about the appearance of conflicts of interest between her role as secretary of State and her family and foundation finances.
For instance, The New York Times had a about Russia, uranium, and donations to the Clinton Foundation. The upshot: In the late 2000s, the US government approved the Russian purchase of American uranium assets. During that period, officials from the firm involved gave more than $2 million to the then-secretary of State鈥檚 family charity.
Also, in 2010 Bill Clinton got $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank that was promoting the uranium deal. Coincidence?
took another angle, documenting that between 2001 and 2013 Bill Clinton earned at least $26 million in speaking fees from companies and organizations that are also major Clinton Foundation donors. That鈥檚 about one-quarter of the former president鈥檚 total speech earnings for that period.
And found errors regarding the reporting of foreign government donations in at least five years鈥� worth of Clinton Foundation tax returns. Foundation officials say they鈥檙e now reexamining their records and will re-file returns to ensure accuracy.
Clintonworld has hit back hard against this negative press, with Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon saying there isn鈥檛 鈥渁 shred of evidence鈥� that as Secretary of State Clinton did anything to benefit Clinton Foundation donors. Clinton supporters also point out that some of the stories partly rely on evidence developed by right-wing activist Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and author of a forthcoming book, 鈥淐linton Cash.鈥�
But here鈥檚 a problem for Clinton 2016: Republicans aren鈥檛 the only ones troubled by the specifics of all these charges.
Democrats look at the stories and old memories resurface, memories with words in them like 鈥淲hitewater鈥� and 鈥渢ravel office firings.鈥� They鈥檙e worried about reliving a past in which the Clintons did not always appear sensitive to ways their business and political dealings could appear less than savory.
The issue here is not corruption per se, writes left-leaning Jonathan Chait in a widely read post. It鈥檚 that the Clintons paid little or no attention to the possibility that big foreign donations to their charity might look bad if one of the charity鈥檚 founders decided to run for president.
鈥淭he best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy,鈥� writes Mr. Chait.
Will this threaten Clinton鈥檚 grip on the Democratic presidential nomination? Probably not. Her polling lead is so large, and her likely opponents so underfunded comparatively speaking, that it鈥檚 still hard to imagine her flat losing a primary battle.
She鈥檒l have enough partisans who will dismiss the new information as unimportant to help her defeat Martin O鈥橫alley and/or Joe Biden. Clinton鈥檚 long effort to lock up the 鈥渋nvisible primary鈥� of party officials, big fundraisers, and state political networks will sure pay off here.
The general election, however, could be another matter. Her GOP opponent will meld the Clinton buck-raking stuff together with her use of a private e-mail server as secretary of State and other miscellaneous charges (Benghazi!) to create a unified theory of Clinton mendacity. Then they鈥檒l try to sell that to enough independent voters and less-committed Democrats to swing the election in key states.
As Post political blogger Chris Cillizza writes today, the biggest threat to Clinton may be a feeling among voters that they don鈥檛 want to live through another era of Clinton-related drama. They may like her and they may think she鈥檇 be a good president, but just . . . all that stuff.
鈥淎nd that is the central problem for Clinton with this series of stories today,鈥� Mr. Cillizza writes. 鈥淚t affirms for people that there is always some piece 鈥� or pieces 鈥� of baggage that comes with electing the Clintons to anything.鈥�
