Pay for play: More Hillary work for donors exposed
posted at 11:49 am on January 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Hillary Clinton goes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today to begin her confirmation process, but she’s hardly an unknown quantity. She served in the Senate for eight years, and the tradition of the club dictates an easy and comfortable confirmation process. Perhaps, though, we can hope that one member of the most exclusive political club on Capitol Hill might ask Hillary about her habit of paying back her husband’s donors:
Secretary of State appointee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.
The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton’s foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raises new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband’s fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator’s government letters under the Freedom of Information Act. …
The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests. An aide to the senator said she made no secret of her involvement in many of the issues. Bill Clinton’s foundation declined to say when it received the donations or precisely how much was contributed.
The most ethical administration evah has more trouble from former Clintonistas than anywhere else. First, Bill Richardson, who served as Bill’s Secretary of Energy, runs afoul of a pay-for-play scandal in New Mexico and has to withdraw. Eric Holder, the Deputy AG during the same period, has embarrassing connections to two scandalous pardons issued by Bill and an undisclosed relationship with impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich. Now the actual Clinton in the Cabinet has pay-for-play connections of her own.
Barack Obama can’t afford to dump Hillary, but clearly, his attempts to return to the Clinton era has proven a little more verité than he intended. They didn’t exactly set the world afire in ethical governance, and it seems like Obama has almost deliberately selected the representative worst of that period for his own administration. This isn’t Hope and Change, it’s Back to the Future with Biff in charge of the casino.
Will the Senate reject Hillary Clinton? Not a chance, mostly because many of her colleagues engage in the same influence-peddling with contributors. Even if they did, we’d likely get someone worse. Obama would either select John Kerry, who reportedly is smarting from not getting an appointment after backing Obama in the primaries, or Susan Rice or even Samantha Power. It’s analogous to the Edwin Edwards-David Duke race for Louisiana governors years ago, when Republicans said, “Vote for the crook — it’s important.” (via Michelle)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Michelle has an interesting post about the confirmation hearing:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/13/a-bittersweet-hillaryjawn-kerry-moment/
I threw up a little inside my mouth.
Enoxo on January 13, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Anyone who tries to make an issue of these kinds of glaring ethical problems that run rampant in the incoming Obama Administration will be tarred and feathered as un-American, as causing a stir over technicalities and smearing people who are trying to do the work of ‘saving the country from a dire economic crisis that affects each and every one of us.’
I have never imagined that I would be glad to invite the adjective un-American to be associated with my name and reputation, but I’m willing to suffer the slings and arrows in order to get back our country.
Anyone else ready to make the sacrifice?
bryanmyrick on January 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM
It’s only corrupt when republicans do it…
JIMV on January 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Hello? McFly! Hello? *noogie noogie*
Welcome to the Circue du Democrat, all the contortionists and trapeze artists are ready to make you forget reality for a few years and revel in the artistry and illusion.
Bishop on January 13, 2009 at 11:59 AM
For a $10,000 contribution to Bill’s library/trailer park, Hillary gave her Gold Star package of services — the introduction of your requsted legislation, the stifling of any pending governmental investigations, and your choice of air fresheners.
Cicero43 on January 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Doesn’t matter….smooth sailing for Hillary. The Saudi Princes must be thrilled to have the SoS in their pockets too!
kcluva on January 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM
“This isn’t Hope and Change, it’s Back to the Future with Biff in charge of the casino.”
AWESOME line Ed! i’ll be stealing it [with attribution of course] — thx. much …
Buckaroo on January 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Ain’t my Hillary cute. See the love as she hugs and kisses Obama? I gotta say I’m so proud.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM
If Hillary and Slick doing the same thing since mid 1980s Arkansas hasn’t hindered their political careers don’t expect this latest influence peddling to matter. It’s who they are.
As AlGore famously said: “A leopard can’t change his stripes.”
viking01 on January 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM
One accomplishment and she bests Condi.
Yeah, the bar is that low.
getalife on January 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Yep and now with Hillary at the helm of state we can feel more at ease about Obama
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 12:19 PM
some things never CH-Ch-Ch-CHAAANNNGGE!
kirkill on January 13, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Oh, Just as one brilliant caller to Mike Gallagher this morning said, “It’s all theater with Obama”.
kirkill on January 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM
This is the first time Hillary will be under oath and forced to answer any questions. It’s time to ask the questions we really want to know, like what did she know about Johnny Chung, Travelgate, the firing of the US attorneys, Whitewater, etc…. I really hope one of her “fellow Senators” lets the hatchet drop on her.
By the way, has she technically resigned from the Senate yet, or is she going to hold off until she has assurances she will be confirmed?
I say ask her about the Rose law firm, and all the rest. Let her have it. This might be the only chance. And honesty and character are relevant to the US Secretary of State position, obviously.
indythinker on January 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM
You begin to believe that the entire game of life is rigged. How else do you go to Congress a pauper and leave an multi-millionaire. And when the people figure it out, the game is over. Shovel ready, WTF is that supposed to mean.
Obama is the latest actor to take the stage. A thinker he is not. A shuck and jive act, that’s all he is.
We know the formula for fixing the economy, get governemnt out of it.
tarpon on January 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Hillary will be able to save the taxpayers DoS airfare by selling us out to Dubai and kissing Suha Arafat on the same fact finding mission. When it comes to graft the Clintoons can be very efficient.
viking01 on January 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM
What are Hillary’s qualifications for the position? Her senate seat? Never has there been a less qualified person for the job. The only reason she is a senator is her many years as first lady and co-president. Hardly a stellar resume. I don’t even remember her running for that shadow position of power. The SOS is too important to leave to amateurs. Anyone remember Madelyn Albright?
On a side note: Is Michelle Obama going to be a co-president? Exactly how much influence will she have on policy? Was she ever vetted for this non existent position?
Tommy_G on January 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM
One thing we do know, Hillary hasn’t anywhere near the brainpower or accomplishments when compared with Dr. Rice. For that matter, Hillary’s sense of style and comportment works better if she was a Drill Sergeant.
We’re in for another round of ‘Ugly, Backstabbing American’.
SeniorD on January 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Hillary’s shady past & questionable connections should come as a surprise to no one. After all, remember where she is from? Hint: it’s NOT New York, and it’s NOT Arkansas.
Anyone?
.
.
.
Yep, Illinois! Park Ridge, to be exact, only a few miles from downtown Chicago.
Birds of a feather, as they say…..
UltimateBob on January 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM
You can look at this with suspicion, or not. Couldn’t it simply be that Senator Clinton was working for NY, and former President Clinton was going where he needed to go to get money? We can continue in the mood of paranoia and gotcha-style politics of the last many years (going back to the Clinton era), or we can opt to view our public servants through more positive eyes. Not everything is a conspiracy. No one is perfect. That’s the way it is. Really, it’s time for a change, about that Obama is correct..
The CJ Political Report on January 13, 2009 at 1:11 PM
BULLSH!T on so many fronts.
thomasaur on January 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Shouldn’t you be here?
Knucklehead on January 13, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Again, why care?
Democrats won’t investigate Democrats.
The press won’t investigate Democrats.
Republican politicians don’t have the guts or the power.
Democrats can do whatever they please. It’s the law.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM
No, they are not going to give her a hard time, and there is very little chance of her not getting confirmed. They (the other senators) don’t want her around, either. This is their best chance to get rid of her.
bookman on January 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Hillary has not served as a senator for eight years, Ed. For the last two, she has spent her time running for the presidency, just as Obama had done.
Like all of the Dem power players, Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for. No Secretary of State candidates should have even a whiff of influence peddling hanging over them, especially moneys coming from foreign sources.
onlineanalyst on January 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM
But she has such an incredible relationship with the Chinese Army . . .
I mean, she’s already passed on our military and nuclear secrets to them, think of all the goodwill that’s generated.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I said, “about that Obama is correct.
The CJ Political Report on January 13, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Seriously, what proof do you have that Hillary passed on military secrets to the Chinese?
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM
That their nuclear program just happened to advance 50 years during the Clinton Administration?
Although she has plausible deniability, given that she’s a complete idiot and doesn’t recall anything during the eight years she was in the White House, that didn’t reflect just magnificently on her.
NoDonkey on January 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Perhaps she has more credentials than say Condoleeza Rice did when she took over state. I think she was a great senator for NY. Certainly better than John Keyy’s friend Chuckie Schumer.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Do you forget she was in the ceremonial role of first lady during the Clinton Presidency? Do you really think she is an idiot? How could an idiot do what you accuse her of without any proof?
I believe there was a chinese scientist who passed on Nuclear secrets to the chineses. Are you blaming her for that?
Are you picking on her because she is a woman? I’m beginning to wonder. Most people would pick of Bill Clintoon for that maybe but not her.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 4:54 PM
This happened during W’s watch do you make the same accusation about him?
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Why are there any surprises in a confirmation hearing or the vetting process when the appointee was a candidate for President just last year? Negative information about both Richardson and Clinton has somehow only now come to light after all the oppo-research they endured.
Why don’t we find these things out before we let them run for President? Are these cabinet jobs somehow more critical than the top job that we care what kind of person fills them, but the POTUS only requires a popularity contest?
I’m baffled.
James on January 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM
These hearings are a big sham. The purpose is to get the Senators before the cameras for a couple of soundbites. It tricks the people who vote into believing that congress actual does useful work. These are Senators for Gods sake. If they don’t approve Hillary they have to deal with her wrath for the next 4 years and probably more. If they approve her they get rid of her now. ha ha politics you gotta love it.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Sure, but I’m asking why we let this crap go under our radar when we’re deciding who we want to be POTUS, not why the hearings are shams.
James on January 13, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Sorry I thought you knew. To be POTUS you only need to be elected by the people just like a Senator or Congressperson. For a cabinet position you need to be Nominated by the POTUS-Elect and then be approved by our elected representatives in the Senate. In our democracy Obama does not need a security clearance either. He is the POTUS-Elect. We the people elected him. Don’t like it? It’s because of that pesky darn constitution thing as amended.
kanda on January 13, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Yes, I understand the process well. That’s not the point. I still think that anyone who desires the Presidency ought to be vetted to the point where their colon needs six months to heal before they can formally announce their candidacy.
It would save us all the Berg lawsuits as well as the Clintonic corruption.
James on January 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM
…and maybe shorten the interminably long campaign season we no longer need in the era of instant communications, yet seems to be growing longer each election.
James on January 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Nay, verily I say unto thee, that is exactly the point
what you want would place unconstitutional restrictions on the presidency. It can be fixed with a lil ole constitutional amendment.
Bergs unfounded lawsuit is just that, unfounded. Being born in Hawaii Obama is a citizen and he is 35 years old or older. That meets the constitutional qualifications.
Somehow you seem to think that the Clintons are the corrupt politicians. It would be easier for you to list the politicians who are not corrupt. None immediately come to mind.
kanda on January 14, 2009 at 5:48 AM
Yep and put restrictions on how much money can be spent on elections. Spending a collective over 1 billion dollars is crazy. Of course that goes back to the corruption of all politicians we recently spoke of. The last few Republican congresses set the standard for corrupt politicians and the democrats learned the lesson well.
kanda on January 14, 2009 at 5:51 AM