海角大神

A book that isn鈥檛 set to be released for another two weeks is听, and could pose problems for Hillary Clinton going forward:

The book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings 鈥渂ig news鈥� that will 鈥渟hock people鈥� and make voters 鈥渜uestion鈥� the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

鈥淐linton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,鈥� by Peter Schweizer 鈥� a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities 鈥� is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton鈥檚 State Department in return.

鈥淲e will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,鈥� Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor鈥檚 natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton鈥檚 campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein鈥檚 鈥淏lood Feud,鈥� about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper鈥檚 鈥淐linton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.鈥�

But 鈥淐linton Cash鈥� is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author听 to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes Mr. Paul and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have been briefed on the book鈥檚 findings, and its contents have听already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates鈥� campaigns.

Conservative 鈥渟uper PACs鈥� plan to seize on 鈥淐linton Cash,鈥� and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton.

And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job.

A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans鈥� coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton 鈥溙齩n twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,鈥� and he said 鈥渋t will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons鈥� record, and we know it will not be the last.鈥�

This isn鈥檛 the only story regarding the Clinton Foundation that has come out since Clinton entered the race. Over weekend,听听reported that the company owned by听Victor Pinchuk, who has been a top donor to the Foundation for years now, had business dealings and other ties to Iran, although there was no allegation made or evidence presented of any sort of听quid pro quo听related to Iran. That鈥檚 what makes this new book different, apparently since Schweizer makes specific allegations tying donations to the Foundation to policies advocated by the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of State. While the details of what鈥檚 in the book have not be released yet, the allegations made so far are similar to听, that Clinton had altered her position on a Colombian trade deal and human rights in return for contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Uncovering the truth behind all of this has been difficult, though because, as听听noted in March, the Clintons have made it exceedingly difficult to 鈥渇ollow the money鈥� when it comes to donations made to the Clinton Foundation from overseas.

Not surprisingly, today鈥檚 reports are being trumpeted by the听听, but even听听notes that Clinton will likely have to deal with questions and allegations regarding contributions to the Clinton Foundation for some time to come:

Critics of the Clinton Foundation portray it as an ingenious backroom pay-to-play scheme obscured by the mom-and-apple-pie work going on at the front desk. One concern is that US individuals and corporations gain access to the Clintons, curry favor with them, and use their affiliation with the former first couple to launder their brands. They鈥檝e collected money from folks who turned out to be pretty unsavory, including听. In return, the Clintons get money for projects that help the underprivileged, burnish their own brands, and continue to build their political network.

The other major point of contention is the foundation鈥檚 longtime practice of accepting contributions from foreign countries. Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed to suspend most of those donations while Hillary was secretary of state, but at least one 鈥� a听听for Haitian earthquake relief 鈥� slipped through the cracks. And the Clintons resumed taking money from foreign governments after Hillary resigned from the Obama administration in early 2013. Saudi Arabia and Norway have each given between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation since its inception, according to the organization鈥檚 records.

(鈥�)

The truth is the foundation has undergone significant changes in management in recent years, after Chelsea Clinton was sent in to clean up what many in the Clintons鈥� inner circle saw as听. Even with those changes, the whole construct leaves Hillary Clinton vulnerable to political attack. Here鈥檚 why:

1. It reinforces a series of powerful memes against Hillary Clinton: Republicans say she鈥檚 unwilling to play by the same rules as everyone else, and her populist turn on the campaign trail is at odds with her big-dollar fundraising, much of it from foreign governments and individuals.
2. Perhaps more important 鈥� since most Republicans aren鈥檛 inclined to vote for her 鈥� it reminds Democrats of two toxic perceptions about Clinton within the Democratic Party: she鈥檚 too cozy with, perhaps even co-opted by, the very Wall Street and corporate titans who are most reviled on the left (Barclays, Citi, Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil, and Walmart are all foundation supporters), and she exercises poor judgment around both the money she raises and the company she keeps.

鈥淚t fuels a narrative that鈥檚 not positive,鈥� one House Democrat who supports Clinton鈥檚 presidential bid said in an interview Thursday on Capitol Hill. 鈥淭hey [the Clintons] show a real tin ear when it comes to their own behavior.鈥�

How you feel about this story will likely depend on how you feel about the Clintons in general, and Hillary Clinton specifically. If you鈥檙e a Republican or just generally a critic, then this is likely to be seen as yet another example of Clinton chicanery. If you鈥檙e a supporter, it鈥檚 another example of Republican hysteria about the Clintons that has a history going all the way back to the 1992 campaign for president. Looking at this as objectively as possible, though, it strikes me that this is at least a legitimate question that Clinton and her campaign, as well as the former president and the Foundation, ought to address rather than dismissing it as they have in their initial comments about the book and today鈥檚 reporting in听The New York Times.听Even when it came to the allegations that were being made against them 20 years ago, the Clintons were quite often their own worst enemies in the way that they would respond to things like this with denials and foot-dragging rather than addressing the issue head-on. During the Whitewater investigation, for example, it took years for Clinton to produce the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm, and when she did the explanation for the delay was so convoluted as to defy credibility. Similarly, President Clinton鈥檚 response to the Lewinsky scandal, up to the point of arguing in a deposition over the definition of the word 鈥渋s鈥� seemed like the perfect example of that old nickname 鈥淪lick Willie.鈥� If that鈥檚 how the campaign and the Foundation intend to handle the ongoing questions regarding foreign donations, then the questions are not going to go away anytime soon.

Doug Mataconis appears on the Outside the Beltway blog at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/.