Type to search

Fashionable Bashing: ‘New York’ Columnist Knows Little But Talks Big

Editor's Blog Featured Post Memo Pad

Fashionable Bashing: ‘New York’ Columnist Knows Little But Talks Big


Jonathan Chait of New York magazine has done no small damage to his own reputation as a liberal intellectual over the past year or so, but apparently feels he can rehabilitate himself by attacking the reputation of the Clintons — always a fashionable media pastime, especially during an election cycle.

So today, Chait describes the Clinton post-presidency as “disastrous.”

Certainly the work of the former president hasn’t been “disastrous” for the millions of people across the world aided by the work of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, including vast numbers whose lives have been saved over the past dozen years or so thanks to the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative (which Chait doesn’t deem worth mentioning). Nor has the Clinton post-presidency proved disastrous for President Barack Obama, a former adversary whom the Clintons have served very well indeed.

Nevertheless, parroting a series of recent accusations against the Clintons, Chait condemns the couple as “disorganized and greedy.” Much of what he repeats in his column is so easily debunked, however, that what he reveals is not their lack of character but his own weak journalism.

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative,” intones Chait. But that is such an inaccurate, misleading way to characterize what happened as to indicate that the columnist may need remedial reading instruction.

Tendentious and biased as it was, even the Times report noted that the decision to approve the Russian uranium sale was made not by the State Department alone, but by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) — a powerful interagency committee chaired by the Treasury Department that includes the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Energy Department, and a host of other cabinet-level government agencies.

Nowhere did the Times prove or even suggest that the State Department drove the Russian uranium decision, because that isn’t how CFIUS works. And nowhere did the Times report show that Hillary Clinton personally influenced the decision. Indeed, the record indicates that she played no role whatsoever. Knowledgeable observers of CFIUS believe that its operations are dominated by Treasury and Defense, not State.

To learn what really happened, though, Chait would have needed to read carefully, then maybe ask an intelligent question or two — but he couldn’t be bothered.

Chait complains that President Clinton received speaking fees from some of the same organizations that have donated to his foundation, linking to an article in the Washington Post. He fails to explain why he thinks that is a conflict of interest. To the contrary, it should be obvious that anyone who admires the foundation’s work might wish to hear the former president speak about that and other topics. (The overlap is actually smaller than might be expected, anyway: only 67 of the 420 groups that paid him a speaking fee over the past decade are also foundation donors).

He points out that the Clinton Foundation is re-filing and auditing some of its tax returns because of errors that have been discovered. Many other corporations, non-profits, and individuals have made errors on their taxes, as he surely knows. Nobody has accused the Clintons or their foundation of attempting to cheat the government; the foundation is tax-exempt, of course, and the Clintons personally have disclosed more of their tax returns over the past three decades than any political family in American history.

Continuing to build his case, Chait quotes another New York Times article, reported by Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick in August 2013, which claimed among other things that [the Clinton Foundation] “ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.”

But the New York columnist apparently never bothered to consult President Clinton’s response, which schooled the Times reporters on the basics of non-profit financing and tax reporting:  “The reporting requirements on our tax forms, called 990s, can be misleading as to what is actually going on,” the former president explained. “In 2005 and 2006 as a result of multi-year commitments, the Foundation reported a surplus of $102,8000,000, though we collected nowhere near that. In later years, as the money came in to cover our budgets, we were required to report the spending but not the cash inflow.”

The Times reporters – and Chait – could have tested their assumptions by asking a few simple questions. They might have learned that President Clinton maintained a cash reserve fund in the foundation that sustained its life-saving programs during the worst of the recession, when donations shrank. Not so “disorganized,” as it turns out.

Finally, Chait lifts a lengthy passage from a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza, arguing that Bill Clinton favored Hillary’s appointment as Secretary of State to somehow benefit himself and his foundation. It suggests that foreign leaders attended the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual New York meeting — and foreign donors gave to the foundation — because of her position in government.

To bolster this notion, Lizza quoted an anonymous source: “‘Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,’” the Clinton associate said. “‘It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.’“

That is simply nonsense, as anyone having even the barest familiarity with the facts could attest. The Clinton Global Initiative began in 2005, four years before anyone imagined Hillary Clinton would ever be named Secretary of State, with a stellar roster of present and former foreign heads of state and other leaders that included British prime minister Tony Blair and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The Washington Post described that first meeting as Clinton’s own “mini-General Assembly of presidents, prime ministers, kings and other pooh-bahs.” And the foundation has benefited from the support of foreign governments, principally U.S. allies like Norway, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as well as individual foreign donors, since no later than 2002. He could have looked that up quite easily, too.

For someone who knows very little, Chait is very opinionated (and loud). His ignorance was amplified by excited links in Politico and the Drudge Report – which may be what he really wanted in the first place.

Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1


  1. charleo1 April 24, 2015

    Thank you Mr. Conason for telling it like it is. A great example of why I read the NM everyday! Would love to read Mr. Chait’s rebuttal. But, such authors seldom defend their hit pieces. As it would most likely reveal their complicity in what seems to me, to be a concerted effort to create the illusion of blood in the water, surrounding Hillary Clinton. And set off what some would hope would become a campaign ending feeding frenzy. Of which, after much innuendo, spurious accusations, and wild rumor, her support would dwindle with Independents, her bid for the Presidency would end. And that would be lead story. Upstaging, and covering up the facts coming out much later, that there never was any, there-there, to begin with. But, that’s how politics roll in the Country today. Seven investigations, over a four year period, over an unfortunate incident in Benghazi Libya. With very few moving parts, and no remaining disputes about the facts, simply cannot be put to rest, until after the election.

    1. Adam_T April 25, 2015

      According to a poster on Dave Leip’s Atlas Forum, Chait has admitted that he wrote the article because, as a self proclaimed liberal, he wants to see a serious challenger to HRC.

      I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

      1. charleo1 April 25, 2015

        Yes, he said that. However, if his intention was to create room for a challenger to Hillary. His attacking her from the Right is a fool’s errand. Plus, the whole thing needs some real there, there. So far it feels like a Right Wing hit job sponsored by the Koch operation. As Mr. Conason, and others have pointed out, to make the claim uranium sales, involving several agencies throughout the gov. Were somehow shepherded thru the lengthy process by Hillary’s State Department, because donations to Bill’s charity greasing the wheels. Runs afoul of the reality of such complex transactions very quickly. And threatens the already dubious credibility of the case. The fact is, we Democrats see supposed, “Liberals,” selling out to the Right Wing’s money machine all the time. We don’t like it, but we understand it. Hillary’s weakness in the Democratic Party lies in her perceived coziness with Wall Street. With her likely support of the Asian trade deal. A thing, perhaps the only thing, of which the Republican Right has ever fully supported Obama. And the issue that most contains the greatest potential of splitting of what is otherwise a very united Party. And might well create room for Hillary’s challenger, from the Left.

    2. FT66 April 25, 2015

      Anyone who masters politics very well, will tell you these allegations are going to backfire. Firstly, it makes Democrats bind tightly with Hillary. Secondly, independents are not stupid, thats why they don’t belong to either Party. They are comparing and constrasting everything. They will not be attracted to the GOP side just only they have attacked HRC so heavily. In the end it will be work done zero and back to square one as only the republican base will remain sticking to allegations.

      1. charleo1 April 25, 2015

        I mentioned Independents, a disparate group of about 5-7%, that may vote either, or. Usually for fiscal reasons, or dislikes both major Parties. Represents the wildcard in the center of American politics, that usually determine the outcome of a very close election. Which I expect the 2016 presidential contest to be. But, here I agree with the Republicans. With a large voter turnout expected. The Republican Party, being constantly pulled Right by it’s social, and corporate factions, as well as it’s own primary process. The odds of Hillary Clinton winning the Presidency, and the Democrats re-taking the Senate, (Senate races mostly in purple States this round.) Without a huge game changer of some kind, even at this early date, is nearly a certainty. The fact is, for all the Right’s hyperbole about Obama’s failures, he’s ran a very smooth Presidency. And, as tough, and complicated as it all has been, he’s managed to rack up a fair list of impressive accomplishments. In spite of what has been unprecedented, and at times obsessive, shoot yourself in the foot determination by the Republican Party, to thwart him. Most glaringly, if Obama was an aberration, and Left Wing mistake, or his signature ACA, was such a detested train wreck? Then how explain his easy re-election to a second term to those outside their shrinking base? Tying Hillary to Obama, which they will do, they realize is not enough. Benghazi, even as they maintain the charade of inquiry, they also know will not be enough. E-Mails, and private servers will not resonate to many outside their choir. And even tied to this smoky fascination, minus a smoking gun, to any quid pro quo, favors by Hillary as SOS, for donations to Bill’s charity. They realize is a poor substitute for the kind of game changer they’re going to need to defeat what was, with Hillary’s primary defeat to Obama in ’08. Not a coronation so much as a commitment, nearly rising to the level of scared quest, by some Democratic Party leaders, and voters. To unite and support Hillary, if at all possible, should she decided to run. Now that she has, I don’t think desperation, even at this early date, is an overstatement when describing the mindset of GOP strategists, who are crunching numbers, and forecasting likely outcomes, in 2016, without something, make that anything, changing the dynamics.

    3. Dominick Vila April 26, 2015

      Democrats must share responsibility for the Benghazi obsession for not investigating the eleven (11) terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities (Embassies and consulates) during W’s tenure. The GOP focuses on issues like this to deflect attention from their record, because they have nothing positive to offer, and because they know Democrats don’t know how to fight back.

      1. charleo1 April 26, 2015

        While there’s truth that Democrats should have investigated more, purely for the reason there was so much flagrant incompetence, and plain old corruption throughout the Bush Administration. However the Country had been attacked. And this may be my own prejudges here. But frankly, I believe the Democrats as a group, are just more patriotic in general, in their efforts to try to do the right thing for the Country. As opposed to taking every opportunity to play politics, and score cheap points. Plus, the two constituencies are much different people. I think Democrats hold our Party to a higher standard than that. Democrats tend to think about such things as an attack on one of our embassies in a much more realistic, and informed way, than does the Republican base. Who seem delighted to find fault, and demand lengthy investigations, if the President is not a Republican. For a thing that obviously can never be prevented 100%. Again, I’m very partial to Democrats. But, I don’t see Democrats favoring such self serving, time wasting, investigative behavior out of their congressional leaders. I think we do have things we want to see done. Challenges addressed, and reasonable consensus found. And perhaps that’s the difference. Or, maybe we just don’t like to fight? And their transparent, and partisan behavior is just the ticket to muddy the waters, vilify the opposition, turnout their base voters, and win elections? But here’s the deal for me, Dom. Do we really want both Parties acting like Republicans?

        1. Dominick Vila April 27, 2015

          I definitely don’t want the Democratic party to behave the way the GOP does. Mudslinging and creating faux crises are distractions that achieve nothing, when it comes to the well being of the American people and our national security. The only thing it achieves is political, which is one of the reasons the GOP wins so many Congressional seats.
          Having said that, there are ways to fight back. The most important one is to challenge false claims, provide facts, and compare the performance of both parties in a way the average American can understand.

          1. charleo1 April 27, 2015

            We have been corresponding for some time now. And of course I know the last thing you want to see, is Democrats behaving like the GOP. But I definitely share your frustration with our own Party’s inability to make a much easier case to win, to more of the voting public. As we’ve seen, when it comes to challenging false claims. We have a situation where a good number of those claims are coming from a false inverse universe. That has come to influence such a number of voters, which invariably come to any such discussions, with their own set of facts, narratives, and conclusions. It’s gotten so bad, it has become very near impossible for even experts, scientists, doctors, economists, or educators, to hold a fact based, nonpartisan discussion on just about any topic one cares to bring up. Although you consistently do an admirable job. Personally, I dread the thought. But at times I think it is a case that cannot be made. That the dire warnings, and logical consequences of these false claims themselves are insufficient. That the errors must come to fruition, and literally flatten the misinformed dolts back into some semblance of reality. An outcome entirely undesirable I realize. But the Great Depression did serve as one example of this.

  2. quakerinabasement April 24, 2015

    Lizza quoted an anonymous source: “‘Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,’”

    Also, too, he used to be the president of the U.S. Or doesn’t that count?

  3. ZestyItalian2 April 24, 2015

    This is pretty fucking flimsy.

    Look. I will almost certainly be voting for the Democratic nominee. But this “rebuttal” might as well have been written by Hillary’s press secretary. It’s breathless, evasive, weirdly personal and accusatory toward Jon Chait, and alarmingly dismissive of the seriousness of this issue. If Democrats think this is just some sort of conservative fever-dream non-scandal like Benghazi, they need to think again.

    This piece seems to defer blame by reappropriating responsibility to some
    other wing or department or agency, as if the numerous instances of CGI
    donors appearing to receive preferential treatment from the State department are all mere coincidences. It’s a persnickity and weasely defense and I don’t entirely buy it. Furthermore, this article doesn’t even address the thrust of Chait’s complaint, which gives CGI/Hillary the benefit of the doubt in terms of any sort of criminal collusion- his
    point is that they didn’t even appear to CARE about the appearance of conflict of interest. CGI didn’t provide a list of donors to the White House, as the administration requested, and Hillary didn’t use government-issued email, as the WH had requested.

    Any Democrat should be given pause by this- not necessarily by the idea that Hillary may have been operating in collusion with CGI to deliver quid-pro-quo arrangements while Secretary of State, but by how utterly unconcerned the Clintons seemed to be with the appearance that they did, and how little attention was paid to standard procedure surrounding disclosure and transparency. The Clintons have always flown by the seat of their pants. Bill got away with it because he’s a once-in-a-generation political talent, and also because he had some luck. They cannot be this sloppy and this self-absorbed if they wish to return to the White House. It’s important to send that message, as Democrats, to our presumptive nominee. One of my favorite things about the Obama WH (and OfA) is how few unforced errors they make. They are by-the-book and above board, with double-checks and redundancies in place. If Obama is a meticulously manicured quickbooks account, the Clintons are a shoebox full of receipts.

    1. nogatorfan April 24, 2015

      Before you celebrate one of your favorite things (Obama making few unforced errors), you might want to wait until he is out of office.

      Pres Clinton was accused of impropriety while in office but the Whitewater investigation (for one) yielded nothing. This article is about stuff that is supposed to have happened after he left office.

      And Chait has run off the rails recently;the UMichigan affair and his recent piece on political correctness are good examples. GIYF

    2. Adam_T April 25, 2015

      Cough concern troll cough

      1.”..the numerous instances of CGI donors appearing to receive preferential treatment from the State department are all mere coincidences.”

      Such as?
      Even Chait doesn’t make any specific claims of what these alleged instances of preferential treatment are.

      2.I support Obama, but even Las Vegas television Investigative reporter and UFO researcher (which means he often files FOIS) George Knapp, who is as non partisan as one can get has complained that Obama’s untransparent nature makes the Dumbya Admin look good.

      1. bikejedi April 25, 2015

        Well a few things are readily apparent . Hillary granted favors to foreign governments in her position as Secretary of State for donations to the Clinton Foundation ( can you say TREASON ). She also destroyed most of the evidence ( can you say obstruction of justice ) The other thing that is readily apparent is that she knows that most of her supporters don’t pay attention and are at a Gruber level anyway . The ones that do pay attention she knows they wont care , as to them it is more important to win an election for gloating rights then it is to elect someone ethical and qualified . They know Hillary is an unqualified unethical pathological liar and a train wreck and they will still support her because to them it is about gloating and not the welfare of their Country or their children . For the rest of America Hillary just gave America the double middle fingers as she always does . It is very telling that the people blasting her these days are Liberal print media and investigators .

        1. charleo1 April 25, 2015

          Well, thanks for reporting from the perspective of the Right Wing’s, Amen corner. Which, is not, I repeat not, representative of the larger public’s perspective. Let me remind you, they’ve got you. It’s the majority they’ve yet to convince. And their credibility is nearing zero, and falling, with every new investigation they open up over Benghazi. Or with their every baseless, puffed up, unsubstantiated, accusation against one of the most thoroughly vetted people in the Country, thanks to the GOP. That in an election season undoubtedly want, and will hold yet another sham investigation, to get to the illusive bottom of yet another sham scandal. Which they will never find, because what they claim to be looking for, never existed in the first place. But, they know, at least it keeps you entertained, and excited at the mouth watering prospect of finally nailing a Clinton. The public is paying attention, they just have different priorities. And are listening to the GOP for different things. Like what do they stand for now?War, or peace? How will what they are supporting help me? Are they really working to save the Middle Class, or just shilling for the Koch Brothers? How would their next President differ from their last? Could we expect the Supreme Court the next President appoints, to veer further toward corporate empowering Citizens United type rulings, or away from that? Can a government, large or small, that only represents a thin minority of monied interests at the top, over the majority of everyone else, still be considered a democracy?

          1. bikejedi April 25, 2015

            I usually don’t respond to you because in the past you have resorted to immature and intolerant name calling but what the hell I’ll take a shot . first judging by polls done on the most Liberal MSNBC it is the majority opinion and that will only grow as she dodges questions on her donations and give America the middle finger . I always said they would find nothing actionable on Benghazi but they would expose her lies that she didn’t have the money to supply Security ( wheres that 6 Billion then ? ) and that she didn’t ignore requests for more Security ( she did proving she was a complete failure as an administrator ) and lastly that she made up a ridiculous story about You Tube being the cause of a Muslim Terrorist attack . A lie so ridiculous that only Gruber level people would buy that and repeat it . Did you buy it Charlie ? is that one you repeated ? Now you cant blame Republicans for her new Scandals because it is Liberal investigators finding all this delicious stuff out . Of course Hillary was proactive in destroying evidence … She investigated herself and cleared herself of any and all treasonous crimes … Oh and then she destroyed all the evidence virtually flipping America off in her arrogant way . That’s ok because there is enough of a paper trail that proves she and Bill traded on her position as Sec State to sell off half of our Uranium production to Putin … the problem of course is that most Liberals dont pay attention and the ones who do will defend her if it means winning an election . You people prove you don’t care of she committed treason as long as she can win so you can have gloating rights over Conservatives . If you cared about your Country and kids you would be demanding she drop out and not supporting someone so criminally treasonous .

            To answer your other questions … Well our Conservative candidates support the Constitution and limited Govt . They support measures that would result in a robust economy for the middle class not the same Obama policy that has resulted in the greatest number of Americans and the greatest percentage of Americans in this Nations history working Part Time Jobs … They support a Foreign Policy which will eliminate Muslim Terrorism while supporting our Allies ( unlike any Dem ) and they wont support Obama’s plan to give Iran a Nuke . Our establishment candidates are Democrats and they cant win so I am sure you are rooting for Jeb

          2. charleo1 April 25, 2015

            First of all, this isn’t about, “her donations.” Or, donations to her. But donations to a real charity, with a long list of laudable accomplishments. And secondly, nothing has been proven. Unless it is that the perception of unlimited money given by private individuals to persons closely allied with public officials unduly influences public policy. And that perception undermines pubic faith in government institutions. And that perceived undermining is irrespective of any proving of any quid pro quo favoritism needing to be uncovered, to affirm those suspicions. That those assumptions of guilt, and charges of coverup, flowing from the donated money, are enough. Ergo, what does the wealth worshipping, Koch pleasing, corporatists on the Right say about unlimited contributions corrupting their own agenda? I know what they claim. Pure as the driven snow they say. Even the unaccountable dark money that could flow into the process from any shell corporation set up in the U.S. from any entity in any part of the World, for this specific purpose, doesn’t concern them. As money in politics, is simply a matter of free speech. Disclosure is so freedom inhibiting. So, it’s all about freedom. All about limiting what big government, and activists judges can step in and do to limit free will, free markets, and liberty. Right?But then, a billionaire Columbian donates a few million to Bill’s charity, his Country signs a trade deal from which he profits, and there’s your solid proof? Sheldon Adelson donates $100 million dollars to Republican candidates, and says we ought to detonate a nuclear bomb in Iraq to send a message to Iran. And the Republican Party hopes to scuttle a multi-national, Iranian nuclear arms agreement, is all purely coincidental? Where’s the outrage on the Right? Where’s your calls of treason? The allegations of quid pro quo? The selling, and outsourcing of American foreign policy? Where is the real scandal?

          3. BillP April 26, 2015

            Charlie what is funny about bikeyboy’s comments is that when he is challenged he resorts to his whiny reply “I usually don’t respond to you because in the past you have resorted to immature and intolerant name calling but what the hell I’ll take a shot .”

          4. charleo1 April 26, 2015

            Well, hell! The thing about this guy is he’s got a lot of garbage to unpack. And there just ain’t enough hours in the day. Notice, he always knew nothing would come out of Benghazi! Right! But, this latest thing about Bill’s charity is sinking the old gal fast. That’s if, you believe the same polls he does…

          5. jmprint April 26, 2015

            If you republicans really cared about TRASON, CHENEY would be in prison.

        2. Hemidemisemiquaver April 25, 2015

          I’m thinking that all this stuff you listed should wind up holding HRC to about 400 Electoral College votes. Hardly a mandate, wouldn’t you say?

          I congratulate you on an excellent job.

          1. bikejedi April 25, 2015

            So you are agreeing with me that Dem voters won’t even care how criminal and treasonously unethical she is ? Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          2. Hemidemisemiquaver April 25, 2015

            “criminal and treasonously unethical she is ?”

            Asserting that something exists is not proof of its existence.

          3. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            Using common sense and looking at all of her criminally unethical scandals would tell any reasoning person all they need to know .. Have a nice weekend
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          4. Hemidemisemiquaver April 26, 2015

            Jeez, you REALLY don’t understand what proof by assertion is and that it’s a flawed way to argue your points. But, it’s all you’ve got, so there is that.

            “criminally unethical scandals”

            Ah yes, the “Select Solyndra IRS Committee to Investigate the Benghazi ACORN Birth Certificate.”

            There’s this:

            “It’s important for the American people to know the truth about what happened in Benghazi,” [Boehner] said.”


            “Even at face value Boehner’s premise is flawed because if the
            American people don’t “know the truth,” that would mean several
            Republican-controlled committees that issued their own conclusive
            reports on the matter have withheld the truth.”


          5. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            What does orange man have to do with this ? What does Solyndra have to do with this ? Now the IRS and the destruction of evidence is directly comparable to Hillarys criminal behavior .. so at least you hit on that
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          6. Hemidemisemiquaver April 27, 2015

            “What does orange man have to do with this ?”


            “What does Solyndra have to do with this ?”


            “Hillarys criminal behavior”

            And not one criminal indictment..

          7. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            So you want to bring Solyndra and Orange man up in a Hillary thread ..Anyone fair minded person who has followed her decades long criminal behavior lies and obstruction of justice would come to the conclusion she is far too unethical to lead a Kool Ade stand …However a lot of Liberals are drinking that soooi
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          8. Hemidemisemiquaver April 27, 2015

            It seems you’re saying that Boehner can’t comment on Hillary. It seems you’re saying the committe lead by Gowdy can’t investigate her.


          9. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            Whaaaa…Boehner can talk all he wants and Gowdy is principled but I don’t think they can find anything actionable on Benghazi because Hillary came down with the flu er I mean she caught that concussion …She doesn’t recall anything but she did ask What difference does it make ….and then she destroyed all the evidence thus obstructing justice ….The one thing they might be able to find out about is the 6 billion she ehem lost ….But that would only proved she lied when she said she didn’t have money for Security and that she is a liar who is inept and unqualified ….Everyone including yourself knows that and won’t support her .. Some liberals will still support her in spite if knowing all of this …They simply don’t care about the welfare of their own Country
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          10. Hemidemisemiquaver April 27, 2015


            He whines just like a good conservative.


            And no one, ever, has healed from a concussion.

            “doesn’t recall anything”

            No. That was Alberto Gonzales.

            “she destroyed all the evidence”

            And the proof? There’s no evidence! QED.

            “she lied when she said she didn’t have money for Security”

            And, of course, a Republican House, repeatedly denying requests for funding, had nothing whatsoever to do with anything at all. Completely unrelated and not germane at all.

            “Everyone including yourself knows that and won’t support her”

            Which is why she should be held to right around 400 EC votes. Hardly a mandate at all, wouldn’t ya say?

            “Some liberals will still support her in spite if knowing all of this
            …They simply don’t care about the welfare of their own Country”

            Quit self-pleasuring yourself in public. It’s disgusting.

          11. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            Conservatives don’t whine that is liberals …Yes Hillary conveniently came down with a concussion and then got peeved that someone would dare question her and said what difference does it make ..Well to the loved ones of four dead Americans I think it matters a lot …Yes she admitted she deleted how many emails ? That’s destroying evidence to anyone who isn’t a denier … And yes she shouldn’t have had a funding problem for Security when she can’t account for 6 billion …And yes No fair minded Patriot would support someone like her ….Good thing most liberals hate America right ?
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          12. Hemidemisemiquaver April 27, 2015

            “Conservatives don’t whine that is liberals”


            “said what difference does it make”

            That was a rebuke to Ron Johnson, not a concussion related matter.

            Whining is a true hallmark of conservatism. So is making up your own “history.”

            “the loved ones of four dead Americans”

            A willful misunderstanding of the exchange between Clinton and Johnson. Also, I suspect you were silent during the times Bush II allowed Americans to be killed. What was it? 60?

            I guess IOKIYAAR.

            “when she can’t account for 6 billion”

            This must be one of those things that never make it past the pages of WND or Breitbart News. You don’t need to illuminate me on this. You’ve already proven beyond any doubt that you are not a trustworthy describer of what actually happened.

            “No fair minded Patriot would support someone like her”

            Never have heard of No True Scotsman,” have you? (And don’t bother with “why are you discussing Scotland?,” like you tried with the “why are you injecting Boehner into this discussion?” Protip: it just make you look silly when you say things like that.)

            “most liberals hate America right ? ”

            Ah ha! You’re just frustrated because you can’t go collecting you some liberal scalps. I’ll bet you fap furiously to the thought.

          13. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            First off Boehner had nothing to do with anything anyone was discussing on a Hillary thread .On Hillary …The funny thing is that deep down you know I am right about all of this because you seem to be somewhat intelligent yet you spun and defend for her when you are quite aware she is purely evil …Also I mentioned what difference does it make ….because that is her arrogant dismissive attitude .I am quite aware of who she said it to and her tone …Since I didn’t make up any history I will reiterate what everyone knows …Liberals are always whining about the inequities of life …Conservatives go home and fuck the homecoming queen ( I’m doing my best Sean Connery there ) …And the missing 6 Billion has been reported all over media ….
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

        3. Adam_T April 25, 2015

          So, you admit that unsubstantiated claims are all you have. That’s the only thing that from your post that is ‘readily apparent.’

          Unless you can actually show that she granted favors rather than merely stating a claim as a fact, I’d say that Tehran Tom and his 46 cosigners are far more treasonous and Anti American than HRC.

          1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            Well of course Hillary tried to obstruct justice or any investigation by destroying all evidence …but the Govt documents in Russia seem to confirm the shenanigans …As for Tom it is not Treason to make sure Iran knows that Congress will weigh in on any deal . He is trying to ensure your kids don’t get Nuked and that the largest State sponsor of Muslim Terrorism doesn’t get Nukes …unlike Obama and the Dems
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

    3. KDJ54 April 25, 2015

      I read the New York Times article and I thought its evidence was flimsy and based more on innuendo than anything else. Like this article points out, the uranium deal discussed in the New York Times article had to be approved by other agencies outside of the State Department. The New York Times article mentions this, but does not go into any detail about what agencies had to approve the deal. it would have been a simple matter to have included this information in the New York Times article, but in my opinion it was left out so that the reader would skim over it and miss it. To me this was a critical part of the argument if you are going to prove malfeasance on the part of an individual, it would seem that you would want to put forth concrete evidence to establish your claim. The New York Times article was completely bereft of any type of evidence making any kind of connection to Mrs.. Clinton.

    4. bikejedi April 25, 2015

      You would think after the last 6 years that the Dem voters would know the folly of supporting someone who is totally unqualified with no executive skill set and no administrative record of accomplishment … Someone who is anti American criminally unethical and a pathological liar who thumbs her nose at America ….You think for the sake of their own children they would look for a qualified ethical leader to run but I guess not

      1. Hemidemisemiquaver April 25, 2015

        “qualified ethical leader”

        Carly Fiorina?

        Allen West?

        C’mom, we’re dying over here. Tell us, please.

        1. bikejedi April 25, 2015

          Hint…it isn’t Hillary nor Warren …

          Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          1. Hemidemisemiquaver April 25, 2015

            “it isn’t Hillary nor Warren”

            Aha. The ole “proof by assertion” canard.

          2. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            No simply they are both Pathological Liars …Some people call her Fauxohantas but I like the one I made up Sacoshitgeewa. Cmon you are laughing and you know it
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          3. Hemidemisemiquaver April 26, 2015

            “No simply they are both Pathological Liars”

            You deny using ‘proof by assertion’ by offering a ‘proof by assertion.’

            Yer smart.

            “Cmon you are laughing and you know it”

            Conservative “humor,” eh? Dude, we’re laughing at you, not with you.

          4. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            You are laughing at Sacoshitgeewa …because that is a good one ….remember when you use it to cite me …I made it up
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          5. Hemidemisemiquaver April 27, 2015

            What does Sacajawea have to do with this?

            “I made it up”

            You have my sympathy.

          6. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            SacoSHITgeewa …as in she is a lying sack o Shit …get it ….funny right
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          7. Hemidemisemiquaver April 27, 2015

            Nope. Just hateful.

          8. jmprint April 26, 2015

            So is it Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul?

          9. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            Ted Cruz would be a good pick ..Smart and principled …willing to stand up for the truth and most importantly the Constitution …its too bad that liberals don’t value any of that ..I don’t agree with him on everything but no one can argue that the Constitution would be restored and unlike Obama he would uphold his oath of office
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          10. dtgraham April 26, 2015

            OK. What don’t you agree with him on? You’ve got our interest.

      2. Adam_T April 25, 2015

        ” Someone who is anti American criminally unethical and a pathological liar who thumbs her nose at America”

        I don’t understand. You started off writing a factually challenged comment about HRC and then suddenly you started writing about the entire Republican Party slate of Presidential candidates.

        Just one point: as there are at least 18 Republicans in their clown bus you should refer to them using the plural, not the singular.

        Other than that, I completely agree with your assessment of them. In fact, I could not have summed them up better myself.

        1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

          Excuse me …I don’t see them being charged or accessed of any wrong doing …Nor do I see any of them lying or destroying evidence all while laughing at her own supporters and just calling it a ” distraction ”
          Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

      3. ericlipps April 25, 2015

        And your idea of a “qualified ethical leader” would whom whom–Sarah Palin, perhaps?

        1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

          Has she committed any crimes ? Has she been accused of any wrong doing ? Has she wiped her own email server knowing she is being investigated ? You or I do that and its instruction of justice right ?
          Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          1. dtgraham April 26, 2015

            i) Troopergate.

            ii) Lying about the Ketchekan’s Gravina Island bridge.

            iii) 19 ethics complaints were filed against Palin while she was Governor of Alaska, including starting a fund to pay off her $500,000 legal fees that violated state law.

          2. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            Well I guess there was nothing to it then
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          3. dtgraham April 26, 2015

            You did ask, “Has she been accused of any wrong doing?” Oh yeah, plenty. No one needs to beg for a half million dollar fund to help them pay off their legal fees for wrong doing, unless there was a lot of wrong doing going on.

          4. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            Well then good thing she isn’t running for anything …However that hardly compares to Hillarys more then 3 decades of criminal behavior and scandal nor all the dead bodies she has left in her wake
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          5. ericlipps April 27, 2015

            As for crimes, well, there’s this, which covers the “accused of wrongdoing” ground as well.

            As for the emails, there’s this from a CNN article of March 28: “In December, Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department. Clinton has asked that those roughly 30,000 emails be released to the public. State Department officials have said they will release them after they have been reviewed.”

            Republicans, though, will insist that all the incriminating stuff was destroyed forever if they can’t find in the ones she turned over (as they won’t) proof that she deliberately set up our diplomatic personnel at Benghazi to be attacked, and murdered Vince Foster as well. They keep hoping that if they just keep digging, they’ll find a body buried somewhere.

          6. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            Yes she investigated herself on all her criminal wrong doing and treasonous acts and she cleared herself of any wrong doing …she then deleted and wiped her own personal email server even though she knew she was the focus of an investigation and the investigator wanted to see everything ….not some …not the ones Hillary deemed necessary all of them …Since you seem intelligent and know of some of Hillarys past scandals you know deep in your heart ( you don’t have to admit it to me ) that she is a wholly evil person with no ethics …You know someone like that is not qualified to lead so why not support and demand a different candidate and if no one emerges on your side consider the other sides candidate ?
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

      4. jmprint April 26, 2015

        Why worry who the Dem voter votes for, your not voting dem, so why question it? She is not Anti-American, just like President Obama doesn’t hate America, go back and look at your post to find out who the pathological liar really is, “the man in the mirror”

        1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

          They are both Anti Americans who use the Constitution as toilet paper …Obamas own words and his constantly making apologies for America prove his feelings and Hillary could care less about this Country …look at her track record …she cares about one thing …power and a title …Obama screwed her out of her shot in 2008 when he played his race card. Hillary returned the favor by playing the birther card in him Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

      5. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

        “…. but I guess not.”??
        Of course NOT. When have the leftist/liberal/socialistic/”progressive” DUMBASSES allowed FACTS to get in the way of vetting Killary or Obama??

        1. bikejedi April 27, 2015

          They don’t care if she is an unethical criminally treasonous wretch …They don’t care if she would be an unqualified overmatched Train Wreck as a President ..To them they will support her as long as they think she can win …To them it isn’t what is good for the Country only if they can win and gloat
          Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

    5. dtgraham April 25, 2015

      I don’t understand the recklessness and disregard for protocol and rules either. There’s probably no more to this than any other fake Clinton scandal from the right, but why do this to yourself? At least make them invent the inevitable phony scandals instead of handing them things; some of which actually have something to it.

      When you’re told by the White House to list the foundation donors, do so. Don’t hide them. As Secretary of State, use the government e-mail account. Don’t bring a server into your house and do everything in private. If you’re going to do that for some strange reason, then hand over the server when requested. Don’t permanently delete all of the e-mails yourself in private.

      She’s known for years that she was running for President, or at least very strongly considering it. I don’t get it. Man, this reeks of impropriety.

  4. nogatorfan April 24, 2015

    Quoted from article:

    He points out that the Clinton Foundation is re-filing and auditing some
    of its tax returns because of errors that have been discovered. Many
    other corporations, non-profits, and individuals have made errors on
    their taxes, as he surely knows. Nobody has accused the Clintons or
    their foundation of attempting to cheat the government; the foundation
    is tax-exempt, of course, and the Clintons personally have disclosed
    more of their tax returns over the past three decades than any political
    family in American history.

    My question: if the foundation is exempt, does it still have to file tax returns?

    1. David Bluefeather April 24, 2015


    2. Adam_T April 25, 2015

      It has to file tax returns to show that it’s spending is in line with the requirements for a charitable organization so as to remain exempt.

      1. charleo1 April 25, 2015

        Given that such, “charitable,” organizations as American Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity, or ALEX’s Citizens for Tax Reform, are also considered tax exempt, as are Evangelical Mega-Churches. The bar has no doubt been lowered. But even here, in a lax atmosphere, a double standard seems necessary to support claims of irregular reporting. Ironic. Are they actually calling in the IRS? As they are advocating eliminating it? Whew!

        1. Adam_T April 25, 2015

          I don’t believe the IRS has been called in. The Foundation was found by Reuters to have made a number of mistakes in reporting the nature of some of their donors.

          There is a Forbes News Story, of all places, on it, that largely clears the Clinton Foundation. I believe that article says that even if the Clinton Foundation had not reexamined it’s statements, it would have been in no danger of losing its tax exempt status.

          1. charleo1 April 25, 2015

            Right. I should have ask sarcastically, if they were now calling for an IRS inquiry on the Clintons after all the hubbub about the IRS holding up T-Party fundraising group’s tax exempt status, earlier. I had not heard about the Forbes article. But like you said, if Forbes, of all places, cleared the foundation, they’re probably going to have to look elsewhere for the dark plot. Like, taking money from rich men who like to subjugate women. One
            of the more hypocritical charges about the foundation. So how many billionaires would that leave? Bill Gates treats Melissa alright, I think. But, I guess they’d better check him out too! Just so there ain’t no scandal.

          2. Adam_T April 26, 2015
          3. charleo1 April 26, 2015

            Got it! Thanks Adam!

    3. OHvoter83 April 25, 2015

      Yes, it’s called Form 990 and it is horrible. Also, as President Clinton says, it often is misleading if you look at it as you would a for profit company.

      1. Adam_T April 25, 2015

        Yes, I don’t know if this is what you are referring to but I took a course on charity accounting when I was trying to become a CMA here in Canada. I actually failed the course though mainly because I couldn’t comprehend the very difficult mergers and acquisitions accounting.

        The reason charities refer to their income statements as ‘statements of activities’ rather than ‘income statements’ is because in accounting ‘circles’ the term ‘income statement’ directly implies that the expenses are directly connected to the revenue. In the case of charities, there is no such connection between the revenue and the expenses.

  5. Adam_T April 25, 2015

    Joe, the Clinton Foundation Financial Statements are all online.


    The 2012-2013′ returns show a ‘surplus’, or ‘increase in net assets’, as reported on the ‘income statement’ or the ‘statement of activities’ as it’s called in charities (though it’s called a change in net assets, this term refers to the so-called ‘profit and loss’ on the ‘income statement’ and is not a ‘balance sheet’ item) of over $8 million.

    the 2010-2011 show a ‘net loss’ of slightly under $2 million, or slightly less than $1 million a year.

    Though some of the years prior to that do show larger losses, they were, if nothing else, prior to the cleaning up of the organization. So, who really cares about them?

  6. FT66 April 25, 2015

    Republicans are panicking a lot. There is nothing which trumps economy. I repeat NOTHING. They touch Foreign Affairs, they jump onto after HRC on her past. This is like a person who knows now the time is coming to get drown. He will touch this and that to see if he can survive. Good memories of good economy of Clinton era are still in a lot people’s mind. Pres. Obama rescuing the economy after being crashed by the republican “W”, still exist. No one is going to hand over the economy to republicans to be dismantled again. They better go after “W” and not “HRC”.

    1. MV April 25, 2015

      But what happens if Obama keeps borrowing? Obama has added about 8 Trillion to the national debt. That is a big burden on future generations. Printing money can mask a bad economy – and make things look good for awhile…but eventually it catches up. When do we stop borrowing so much??

      1. Adam_T April 25, 2015

        the money printed by the Federal Reserve for their so-called ‘quantitative easing’ campaign does not add to the debt.

        The money borrowed by the Obama administration (and all Presidential administrations) comes from the sale of bonds on which the government pays interest.

        The deficit has also declined significantly the last couple years, though I agree with you that they are still borrowing too much.

        I’m not sure it actually does ‘catch up.’ As long as the government can support the interest payments, despite what you may have been told, the debt itself does not ever have to be paid back.

        Of course, if interest rates shot up quickly, the government would be in a bad situation when the bonds roll over, but I seen no need for a large increase in interest rates for the forseeable future. Although there are the loud, but mostly fringe, columnists who complain about the negative effects of ‘cheap money’ the reality is that the Federal Reserve bases its interest rate policy primarily with the purpose of keeping inflation within a narrow 1-3% (or maybe 1-2%) annual band.

        With a few rather minor exceptions to this, since inflation was finally fully wrestled to the ground in the late 1980s, the annual inflation rate has, in fact, stayed within these confines.

        There may be a case to raise rates given that the government bond yields are, I believe, less than the inflation rate, but the rise wouldn’t be that significant,and, as there is no indication of a ‘persistent rise in inflation’ there probably is no need to raise the rates. “Persistent rise in inflation” is the technical term that the Federal Reserve is concerned about meaning that they understand that a sharp increase in inflation in a given month can be caused by any number of factors, many of which can be one time things.

      2. Independent1 April 25, 2015

        Let’s keep this one fact in mind: Despite how much debt America has, America has the least amount of debt when compared to any other similar nation on the planet – as a percentage of debt to GDP.

        America’s debt to GDP is still in the neighborhood of 73-75%, whereas the debt of virtually every other similar nation on the planet exceeds 80% – Canada’s was 87% a while back, Japans, Russias and some other countries over 100%.

        And Obama HAS NOT add 8 trillion – HE HASN’T ADDED A DIME!!!

        Bush 2 is directly responsible for increasing our debt to 12.8T based on his last budget, and with adding every cent that has been added under Obama because of him allowing the greatest financial disaster to ever strike America to happen on his watch!!!!!!!!

        1. dtgraham April 26, 2015


          I don’t know about that least amount of debt to GDP thing. I know what you’re saying about Obama reducing the deficit every year though. Now imagine if he would have had help from the “Reagan taught us that deficits don’t matter” [Cheney] Republicans.

          1. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            Whomever wrote that wikipedia article apparently isn’t aware that when you calculate a nation’s debt to GDP ratio, you do not include the debt a nation basically owes to itself and is fundamentally accounting funny money. You’re only suppose to include debt owed to other nations and the public. Therefore not knowing what the internal debt is of all the other nations listed, it’s hard there to compare the accurate debt to GDP of other countries, but I had read an article sometime back which mentioned that virtually every other industrialized nation such as America, was generally running a debt to GDP at the time of over 80% and Canada’s at that time was 87%.

            Since about 5 trillion of America’s current 18 trillion in debt are internal IOUs – America’s current debt to GDP is not 106% as shown in that article but in the 73-75% range. Last Summer the CBO said it was 73%.

            And your right about Reagan and Bush’s spending like drunken sailors. There’s another article where someone extrapolated the effects of Reagan tripling our debt and Bush 1 adding another trillion plus and Bush 2 adding over 6 more, and determined if these 3 GOP presidents had stayed even reasonably close to balanced spending, today we would have a surplus showing clearly that Reagan and the 2 Bushes are responsible for every bit of our current debt. If I can find that again I’ll post it.

          2. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            And what I’ve forgotten to mention, and which every RWNJ critic fails to take into account, is that with Bush 2 having pushed our debt to close to 13T (it was 10.6T when Bush left office, but he passed a budget to Obama with 1.4T more deficit spending, and then Obama had to apply close to a .9T stimulus to stop the economic spiral which is clearly chargeable to Bush); that the 13T debt has added a lot of billions to our debt over the past 6 years in interest charges alone, irrespective of the 2 unfunded wars Obama inherited, the 2 unfunded tax cuts which even now those below 400,000/yr are still getting, the unfunded Medicare drug benefit that Bush added as a giveaway to Big Pharma, and several unfunded state mandated programs (like the economically disastrous No Child Left Behind fiasco) that were added under Bush along with depressed tax revenues which were originally close to .5T/yr.

          3. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            Yes, and the unfunded costs for Veteran’s health care from the second Iraq war.

            Also, Bush 2 racked up huge deficits during years of generally strong economic growth when basic economic theory tells you to pay down debt, not increase it, while Obama’s huge deficits came largely during times of recession.

            Even those who don’t believe in stimulus can not deny that revenues decline and spending increases during recessions (what economists refer to as ‘automatic stabilizers’), unless, of course, the elected officials increase taxes or reduce previous spending decisions (like lowering unemployment payments).

            That said, now that the economy is improving it is important imo that Obama reduce the deficit far more than he has so far proposed doing.

          4. dtgraham April 26, 2015

            Obama did what had to be done at the start of his Presidency. It was the same type of stimulus package announced by governments around the world at the time. The difference being the utter collapse of the financial sector in the U.S. that many other countries didn’t have to deal with, at least not to that extent. Combined with GM and Chrysler’s implosion, he had a lot on his plate and had to spend.

            That first year may not have been the best time to start reversing W’s tax cuts, but he might have thought of expediting the sunset provisions in 2010. For the last 4 1/2 years, he’s had virtually no wiggle room on taxation unless it’s more cuts.

        2. Adam_T April 26, 2015

          There are various measures of debt. Canada’s net debt to GDP ratio is around 33%. I believe the U.S 73-75% figure you cite is also based on net debt to GDP.

          1. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            Really? Somewhere someone had posted that Canada’s was 87%. Maybe then I was mixing apples and oranges, if so I’ll have to correct that.

          2. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            Canada’s total debt to GDP is 84% according to the CIA fact sheet. The ‘net debt to GDP’ is 33%. I believe the difference has to do with pension obligations.

            The U.S total debt to GDP is over 100%.

          3. dtgraham April 26, 2015

            The true figure is about that…87%. The Canadian government keeps talking about it’s combined government net debt levels as being the lowest of any G7 country, but that’s a sham and just a political statement in an election year when they’re trying to boost their image as managers of the economy.

            The IMF puts Canada’s gross combined government debt at 87% of GDP or 13th highest among the 30 most advanced economies. Unlike net debt the IMF’s gross debt excludes financial assets held by governments, in recognition that it’s not likely that the debts of one arm of government can or should be paid down by drawing from the assets of another. There’s your IOU’s, and also regional debt from different governmental units of a country that have sovereign power to borrow and spend, are taken into account.

            By the same international measure the U.S. comes out at 108.1% of GDP. With as powerful an economy as America’s, that’s nothing to get excited about. It could have been higher without Obama’s efforts. I’ve read reports that suggest he’ll run a balanced budget before he leaves office. He’s getting closer. Unlike the smoke and mirrors balanced budget just released federally in Canada, his will be real.

            The present Conservative government in Canada couldn’t truly balance a budget if their lives depended on it. They’ve destabilized the fiscal framework that the previous Liberal government spent a decade putting into place. They’re Canada’s Republicans fiscally. The Liberals had 10 consecutive surplus budgets between 1996 and 2005 and drove the gross debt to GDP ratio down to 68%, and the net into the 20’s. Sigh. Well, the Cons will be gone this October. Good riddance.

            The inside baseball bombshell news came last Sunday when it was revealed on a political talk show that the progressive opposition parties will agree to cooperate and take over the reins of government if the Conservatives should squeak out a tiny minority gov’t in October through left wing vote splitting. They can do that constitutionally and apparently will, for the first time. It’s commonly done throughout the British Commonwealth. Why not in Canada? At least 70% of the country now want rid of them but can’t seem to settle on one liberal/progressive party, so it’s only fair.

            The other shocker is that the democratic socialist party (the New Democratic party) look set to form the Provincial government in Alberta on May 5th according to all of the polls. That’s the most conservative province in Canada. It would be like the Democrats wiping up in Alabama or Texas. So, maybe things are finally starting to look up this year.

          4. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            I’m starting to really question the debt to gdp figures given in that wikipedia article which shows Canada’s as 33%. I have an article here which highlights Canada’s debt as of a year ago (April 2014) and just Canada’s direct debt is 68% of GDP and it’s total debt is 230% of GDP when you add up all the provinces.

            Here’s a link to that article. Maybe it’s out in left field, I’m not sure maybe you can clarify this because I’m getting confused from the different articles I’ve read.

            I don’t think Disqus will print the page I’m looking at but I’m going to try (It clearly won’t line things up, but if you look at the very last line – Canada all inclusive) the 2nd number (68.0) is percent GDP for just direct debt. The last number 230 is Percent GDP for all debt combined – Total debt is 4.05 Trillion)

            Table 3: Total consolidated government liabilities, per capita and as a percentage of GDP, 2011/12
            Direct debt Debt guarantees Contingent liabilities and contractual commitments Program obligations Total government liabilities

            Per capita Percent GDP Per capita Percent GDP Per capita

            Percent GDP Per capita Percent GDP Per capita Percent GDP
            British Columbia 27,913 58.4 7,277 15.2 4,010 8.4 64,058 134.0 103,260 215.9
            Alberta 25,678 32.7 19,889 25.3 13,849 17.6 88,225 112.2 147,641 187.8
            Saskatchewan 19,925 28.9 6,654 9.7 10,149 14.7 57,197 83.1 93,925 136.4
            Manitoba 28,504 63.7 6,009 13.4 4,591 10.3 53,604 119.9 92,708 207.3
            Ontario 38,565 78.1 8,301 16.8 7,768 15.7 66,483 134.7 121,117 245.4
            Quebec 41,119 95.4 10,632 24.7 7,675 17.8 59,928 139.0 119,354 276.8
            New Brunswick 29,032 70.1 5,565 13.4 7,350 17.7 51,862 125.2 93,809 226.5
            Nova Scotia 30,885 76.5 6,077 15.0 13,311 33.0 52,793 130.7 103,066 255.2
            Prince Edward Island 27,626 73.9 5,221 14.0 7,917 21.2 48,972 131.0 89,736 240.1
            Newfoundland & Labrador 33,398 52.3 8,181 12.8 6,064 9.5 52,006 81.5 99,649 156.2
            Yukon Territory 11,699 17.4 7,090 10.6 21,300 31.7 70,398 104.9 110,487 164.6
            Northwest Territories
            & Nunavut 39,559 45.5 11,564 13.3 31,230 35.9 77,429 89.1 159,783 183.8
            Canada (all inclusive) 34,831 68.0 9,726 19.0 8,070 15.7 65,321 127.5 117,948 230.2

            Here’s the link (look on Page /11):


          5. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            Yes fair point on the provincial debt. I should not have left that out. Ontario and now Alberta are provinces with significant deficits.

            British Columbia has a small surplus but has a deficit of around $4 billion this year when capital spending is included, and the deficit is even larger when the deficit by crown corporations are included (B.C Hydro is a crown corporation.)

            That said, although U.S States officially have to have balanced budgets and have cut spending and laid off workers during the recession to meet them, I believe in many states there are many ways around these balanced budget requirements and the real debt and deficits in many states is rather opaque.

          6. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            I don’t think much of the Fraser Institute, but I don’t doubt their numbers are accurate.

            I disagree with your post on deficits, the President and Congress. I’m not aware of any time in recent U.S history where the Congress did not alter the President’s budget proposal significantly.

          7. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            Well, there’s a big difference in ‘altering a president’s budget’ and totally ignoring it. And which I’m not sure that aside from FDR where Congress was very obstructionist, that I would agree has resulted in Congress generally making quote ‘significant’ changes. Prior to Clinton, I really don’t remember that and I can remember fairly clearly all the way back to Truman. Yes, there may have been some bartering, but nothing like under Obama where the GOP has basically totally ignored anything Obama has proposed and gone off and virtually done whatever the GOP House thought they could get the Senate to agree to.

          8. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            Congress has ‘the power of the purse’ so they have every right to ignore the President’s budget proposals if they want to.

          9. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            Yes, but given that a president is elected to supposedly guide the country, Congress ignoring the direction a president is wanting to lead the nation, is really counter to the whole basis under which our forefathers built the nation. If Presidents are going to take the blame for what takes place during their watch, it’s totally unfair for Congress to think it has been given a mandate to usurp the president’s guidance.

            Especially when their majority has been established with more than 20 million less popular votes and with only about 36% of the electorate voting.

          10. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            It’s up to the President and his supporters to put the blame on Congress if they are the ones who wrote the deficit budget.

            Other than that, the President has the power of the veto. I’m not sure that the President was elected to ‘guide the country’ according to the Constitution in that, as I said, the Constitution specifically gives the primacy of spending authority to Congress (and in particular the House).

          11. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            I’ll guarantee that’s not the perception most Americans have – nor was it the intention of our forefathers. I’m sure the founding fathers expected the president would create a budget (which he does every year), and they simply designated the House as the Congressional body to refine the president’s budget it and oversee its passage through Congress.

            I’m fairly confident our founding fathers never expected that a political party would totally usurp the president’s budget (remember there really weren’t any parties when the Constitution was written) like the GOP has ever since Obama was in office (they clearly just rubber stamped every budget and virtually every piece of legislation George Bush sent them (except for trying to privatize Social Security).

            No, the American people expect that it’s the president who leads the country – that’s why it’s virtually only during presidential elections that a sizeable percentage of Americans feel energized to turn out and vote. And why even today very few Americans have a positive view of Congress (less than 15%). And why only 36% felt the urge to get out and vote in 2014 – I doubt seriously the vast majority of Americans really understand just how much of the suffering many of them are going through is the fault of Congress rather than Obama.

          12. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            I’m not sure about that. It was only in 1921 that Congress passed a law insisting that the President first submit a budget to start the budget process (and that law was written by the Administration and not Congress). Coincidentally or not it was also around that time that the President first started actually delivering the State of the Union Address in a speech to Congress rather than in the form of a letter sent to Congress and this was also around the time of the first public radio station (1922). Of course, the media’s focus on the Presidency at the expense of Congress has played a large role in the public assumption of the President playing the main role in the government.

            I can’t find any evidence one way or the other, but it would not surprise me if prior to 1921 the Administration did not actually submit a budget to Congress for many years.

            Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”


          13. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            It looks like neither one of us was correct, the founding fathers apparently didn’t consider budgeting at all; prior to 1921 no government organization was charged with keeping a budget.
            (But everything aside. I’m still convinced the vast majority of Americans believe the president controls spending. The GOP’s 24/7 propaganda machine including Faux News has convinced Americans that Obama is a big spender even though he has had little to do with the spending that has taken place):

            See this:

            Before the Budgeting & Accounting Act of 1921, no single government entity oversaw the entire budget. Departments submitted requests to Congress. After World War I, Congress members saw wartime spending raised the national debt and thought they needed more control over government expenditures. Modern budgeting debates still hinge on the powers given to the Congress and the President in this act. The restrictions keep either branch from dominating budget decisions.

            Presidential Accountability

            The act requires the President to submit a budget to Congress every year by the first Monday of February. The President has to justify that budget, so, depending on which party controls Congress, this usually leads to disagreements over what government programs deserve money. Both parties have used this approval process to push their own agendas. The 14th Amendment says the government’s debt can’t be questioned. If Congress refuses to approve enough money to pay debts, conceivably the President could override that decision to fulfill the Constitution’s guidelines.

            Spending Disconnection

            The act didn’t link the budgeting process to the amount of revenues brought in through taxes. The result is deficits and surpluses since the budget isn’t based on what money is available. It puts the focus on what the country wants rather than what it can afford. In practice, Congress approves expenses and then later determines if it will increase the government’s ability to borrow money. This act raises the debt ceiling.

            The Bureau of the Budget

            When the act created the Bureau of the Budget, it essentially gave the President control over individual departments. This bureau gathers and evaluates the competing requests of governmental departments and agencies. This allows the President to create a comprehensive budget. He can reduce or raise requests from each department. In 1970, the Bureau of the Budget was renamed the Office of Management and Budget.

          14. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            I agree with your main point. Republican Congresses have never (since Reagan anyway) submitted a balanced budget under a Republican President, although they lie that they are for balanced budgets.

            That said, in the Obama budget proposals up to 2020 (I don’t know if he proposed budgets up to 2020 or if the CBO scored out his budgets up to 2020) the deficits either increase or do not go under $500 billion a year. Given that the economy is growing,albeit not greatly, there is no excuse to not run balanced budgets, with the exception of infrastructure spending which should be amortized anyway.

          15. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            Yeah! I’m not sure why the CBO is projecting deficits getting larger, I don’t fully understand all that. But keep in mind that the CBO has a history of over projecting what spending will be and underestimating what revenues will be. For example, for last year, I think their projection was about 60 billion higher than what the deficit actually came in at. And don’t forget, America isn’t completely out of the woods yet with respect to recovering from the Great Recession. And austerity is really the last thing you want to employ if you’re looking to get a country moving again after a recession. So the fact that deficits have come down by about 1T/yr in the past 5 years, isn’t really anything to be disappointed about. You can’t drop spending too quickly or you’ll depress the economy which is not something you want to do when the recovery is a little tenuous.

          16. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            And don’t forget too, that apparently, the act of 1921 initially allowed presidents to issue Executive Orders that required spending. FDR created the WPA with an EO which put millions of people in America to work doing reconstruction work all around Congress. It wasn’t until Nixon was in office that Congress decided to take that ability away from the president and create the OMB – the Office of Management and Budget.

          17. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

            Yeah, and Santa Claus is real, you dummy ….

          18. Independent1 April 27, 2015

            Wow!! You really have been brainwashed haven’t you lowlife??

            Tell me, can you give me one bona fide reason that you support the GOP when basically the only thing the party is good for is killing people and/or making them miserable??

            Let me just give you some recent stats:

            Several survey groups have recently done studies, survey groups 24/7 wall street and couple others. Here’s what they’ve found:

            All ten states rated as the most dangerous places in America to live are either Red States or have had GOP administrations for at least the last 6 years plus (NM is the only non red state and it’s had Republicans governing it for at least 6 years – long enough to have resulted in why it’s one of the 10 most dangerous state).

            Similar to that – 24/7 wall street did a study on the 10 most miserable places to live – ditto – all ten are Red states.

            People living in red states live on average 2-3 year shorter lives than people in blue states. There are 5 red states where people are projected to live only to 74-75 while no blue state has life expectancy less than 78 and 10 blue states and only 2 red states are projected to live to 80 and over.

            Red states BY FAR lead the nation in homicides of all types – especially by gun – generally with homicide rates that are twice what the majority of blue state rates are.

            13 of the 15 states with the highest infant and maternal mortality rates (women dying in child birth and babies dying before their 1 year old) are red states.

            In a study that was published in 2013, 21 of the 25 states THAT EXCEED America’s average highway fatality rate per 100 million miles traveled are red states, with 3 of those states having more than double the national average of 10.3 fatalities/100 million miles.

            And I’m sure you’re aware that at as many as 20,000 people have projected to have died in red states that refuse to expand Medicaid since 1/1/2014 when ACA took effect.

            Is that enough for you?? Can you really justify supporting a political party that only knows how to govern in a way that creates death and misery????

          19. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

            Oh my! What a confirmed idiot.
            Where do you get this “information” and these “facts”, from The Daily Kos, Mother Earth, or from Brian Williams??!
            Is THAT the best you’ve got ??!!!!
            Oh brother, these Lenore Whip-taker DISCIPLES are getting worse and worse, dumber and dumber….
            P.S. – And I have this scientific study that found that 85 % of the population in all “57” blue states have anal warts.
            LOLLLL !!!!!!

          20. Independent1 April 28, 2015

            Oh! Louis!! You just don’t want to believe these fake politicians you love so much and that are quasi murders, aren’t really as bad as they are – do you???

            Sorry sucker!! But GOP governance is clearly deadly!! And it’s not only deadly to people, it’s also deadly to economies.

            There have been 17 recessions and 3 depressions in America since 1900, and 14 of the recessions and all of the depressions happened while a Republican was in office – and generally in either a Republican’s 2nd term or when he was elected following another Republican – like Bush 1.

            And it’s not only recessions – Republicans over the past 100 years have averaged a GDP growth of only 2.6%, whereas Democrat presidents have averaged growing the GDP by over 4.3%. And while Reagan and the 2 Bushes could only create 20 million jobs in 20 years in office; Carter, Clinton and Obama created twice that number (40 million) in 2 less years 18.

            And the stock market over the 40 years or so Republicans have been in office, grew at ZERO percent; while under Democrats the return for their 40 years was over 300%… And Fox News even published these facts!!!

            Your dumbness grows with every post you make:

            And here are some of the links where I got some of the data I posted last time – none of it is from the Daily Kos.

            You just can’t see HOW TOTALLY STUPID YOU ARE — CAN YOU???????

            10 Most Dangerous States – 9 were governed by Republicans


            States with the highest vehicle fatalities per 100 million
            miles traveled


            10 States with the Worst Quality of Life – all 10 are run by


            10 Most Corrupt States – All 10 are governed by Republicans


            10 Most Miserable states to live in – All 10 are governed by


          21. Louis Allen April 28, 2015

            Oh my God! This old ignoramus has everything backwards!
            But then again, that was to be expected from an old geezer like you who happens to have the “perfect storm”:
            a) dyslexia;
            b) Alzheimers;
            c) innate dumbness
            Go back to your insane asylum with Lenore, your childhood sweetheart.
            P.S. – I repeat: I have this scientific study that found that 85 % of the population in all “57” blue states have anal warts.
            P.S.2. – Another study in my possesion indicates that the 12 states with the most McDonalds are blue states. LOLLLL!!!

          22. Independent1 April 28, 2015

            I think someone needs to contact Bellview Sanatorium and make them aware they must have left the door open and one of their patients has escaped. Only someone clearly insane refuses to believe reality.

          23. Louis Allen April 28, 2015

            Ha, ha, haa!!
            That was funny.
            How did you manage to escape?

          24. Louis Allen April 28, 2015

            Wow, Deppy, you son of a gun!! How did you manage to escape from “Dumb Bell” Sanatorium??!!
            LOL !!!

          25. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            Keep in mind as you watch today’s GOP, that aside from winning only senate seats in red states (GOP senate candidates who ran in Blue States were soundly trounced by double-digit margins); and with winning only a hand full of governorships, the GOP lost every other election issue open during the 2014 election – incuding losing every personhood issue open even in red states and every min wage ballot issue even in red states. Despite how the senate races came out, many of which were so close even in red states that they couldn’t be called until the next day – the 2014 election was a total debacle for the GOP – and yet, they act like they somehow got some kind of mandate. Republicans clearly like to live in fantasy land.

          26. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            They won Senate seats in seats over incumbents in Colorado and North Carolina and an open seat in Iowa, all of which are so-called purple states.

            I’m not aware of any Republican ‘red state’ Senator that was reelected in a close race. The expected close race in Kansas turned out to be won by Pat Roberts by more than 10%. You may be thinking of Governor Sam Brownback.

            I agree on the ballot issues for the most part and you could have added marijuana legalization which passed in Oregon and Alaska, although medical marijuana failed to pass in Florida where it needed 60% of the vote.

          27. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

            Deppy, you nincompoop,
            Methinks you are spending too much time with my delusional ex-wife, Lenore WhiTTaker !!
            ” the 2014 election was a total debacle for the GOP – and yet, they act like they somehow got some kind of mandate. Republicans clearly like to live in fantasy.”
            Ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaa!!!
            It is YOU, dumbass who lives in fantasy.

          28. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

            Deppy, old chap:
            You can remember “fairly clearly” all the way back to James K. Polk.
            And so can Lenore Whiptaker.

          29. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

            DEPPY boy: Quoting you: “I’m getting confused from the different articles I’ve read.”
            We know, we know, we know, you get confused even from simple things. We know that. Don’t you worry about it.
            When you demonstrate complete, unflinching, and blind loyalty to leftist/liberal/socialist/”progressive” postulates, you earn the right to be confused by simple facts and simple statistics and simple principles.
            And it’s OK, Deppy, because you are no different from your leftist/liberal/socialist/”progressive” friends on this site.
            Don’t worry at all ….

        3. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

          “And Obama HAS NOT add 8 trillion – HE HASN’T ADDED A DIME!!!”
          You, Dependent1, are CRAZY !
          Obama hasn’t added one dime !! This is what’s called FANATICISM, a complete inability to see/tell the TRUTH.

          1. Independent1 April 27, 2015

            The first budget Obama provided input to was his 10/1/09 to 9/30/09 and that included the stimulus and other monies he felt were needed to keep America from falling into a depression – trying to fix BUSHES DISASTER!! and fully chargeable to Bush.
            His second Budget would have been his 10/1/10 to 9/30/11 budget but by that time Mitch McConnell was using the fake filibuster to keep the Dems from accomplishing anything they wanted so Mitch filibustered Obama’s budget and it had to be reworked to cut out any spending in it that Mitch didn’t like – so it wasn’t really Obama’s budget.

            And then starting in 2011, the GOP had taken over the House, and from then on the tea party boys took over and refused to accept Obama’s budgets so all the budgets since 2011 have been fully GOP BUDGETS!!! OBAMA DIDN’T ADD A DIME!!!

          2. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

            Yess!! So true !!
            …. and Obama has been the GREATEST President in the 844 years of our Republic; and Obama, single-handed, fought 5 hungry alligators inside a 6ft X 6ft tank full of sulfuric acid; and Obama has NEVER lied to us (a FACT that lays poor George Washington to shame!); and Obama has been the smallest spending (“smallest spending”??!!) President since Scrooge!!
            Is that the BEST that you moron have??

            Oh brother.

      3. Independent1 April 26, 2015

        Oh! and I forgot to point out that unlike during most other presidencies when there was bipartisanship and presidents submitted budgets which the House of Representatives generally honored and therefore you could blame the president for all that spending – since 2010, the GOP House has essentially ignored every one of Obama’s budget submissions and created their own budgets (actually, what they did was – they would strip out all the detail that Obama provided with his budgets as to where monies would go under each budget category; and present his budgets for votes with nothing but the budget categories and a huge amounts for each category, which of course, got zero votes from everyone in the House and his budgets were therefore trashed).

        So if you don’t buy the fact that the last 5 plus trillion of our debt (Above that 12.8T directly attributable to Bush) belongs to Bush, because he virtually allowed the destruction of the American economy; then you can blame the Republicans in the House for that 5 trillion addition because they’re the ones who set the spending – NOT OBAMA!!! (Ben Bernanke had commented that the 2008-2009 financial disaster was by far worse than the financial disaster during the Great Depression, and actually brought the world closer to total financial collapse than at any previous time in history.)

  7. bikejedi April 25, 2015

    Well a few things are readily apparent . Hillary granted favors to foreign governments in her position as Secretary of State for donations to the Clinton Foundation ( can you say TREASON ). She also destroyed most of the evidence ( can you say obstruction of justice ) The other thing that is readily apparent is that she knows that most of her supporters don’t pay attention and are at a Gruber level anyway . The ones that do pay attention she knows they wont care , as to them it is more important to win an election for gloating rights then it is to elect someone ethical and qualified . They know Hillary is an unqualified unethical pathological liar and a train wreck and they will still support her because to them it is about gloating and not the welfare of their Country or their children . For the rest of America Hillary just gave America the double middle fingers as she always does . It is very telling that the people blasting her these days are Liberal print media and investigators .

    1. John Amado April 25, 2015

      Can you say “citation”, “grammar check”, and “ad hominem” attack?

      1. bikejedi April 25, 2015

        Can you say spin and deflection all while not being able to dispute a thing I posted Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

        1. John Amado April 25, 2015

          In other words, you can’t. There is no spin — unless you are cognitively challenged. I’ll spell it out for you, because evidently reading comprehension isn’t your strong point (nor is logic). Making unbased assertions without citation is mental masturbation (which you do a lot of in most of your copied/pasted comments). The burden of proof always rests with the person making the assertion. So your nonsense about anything being “readily apparent” is an example of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. I point out your sloppy grammar because it suggests lazy and sloppy thinking. It is not deflection but a substantive critique to point out your ad hominem attacks because, again, they demonstrate the utter lack of logic or reasoning in your lame posts. Have evidence? Put up or shut up.

          1. bikejedi April 25, 2015

            John grow up …I am citing the author of the book detailing a direct paper trail between the Clinton’s and the Uranium mine …Excuse me for thinking knowledge of current events would be your forte . You prove the rest that I posted is readily apparent by your rabid defense of Hillary . .Why don’t you demand ethical candidates from your Party rather then unqualified unethical pathological liars Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          2. John Amado April 25, 2015

            Wow…you really are intellectually tone-deaf — and challenged in your reading comprehension. Please point out where I stated my party affiliation? Second, tell me where I specifically defended Hillary Clinton. What I asserted was: cite to your references (which you still fail to do; “the author of a book” could not be any more flaccid), that poor grammar (like flaccid/non-specific “citation) infers sloppy thinking, and the ad hominem attack is fallacious, emotional and puerile. Last, you really need to look up pathological — a term you toss around a lot.

          3. bikejedi April 25, 2015

            Grow up K …
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          4. John Amado April 25, 2015

            I’m not the one calling myself a Jedi (which, FYI, aren’t real beings).

          5. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            How do you know ? Who are you citing ? Huh. Huh …who are you citing ? Have a nice weekend
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          6. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            By your rabid defense you expose yourself …I notice you STILL haven’t been able to refute anything I posted …
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          7. ericlipps April 25, 2015

            You’d be a lot more convincing if you knew how to use apostrophes correctly. It’s “Clintons.” This particular error is the sort of thing one is supposed to be trained out of in grade-school English classes. Should I conclude you dropped out in the sixth grade?

            And citing the author of a book doesn’t make the book accurate. Nor does the fact that this author, whoever he was (since you don’t tell us either his name or the book’s title, we don’t know his identity) is supposedly “liberal” prove he was unbiased about the Clintons, since many people on the left despise them almost as much as folks on the right do, though for different reasons. (And again, since we don’t know who this person is, we have only your word that he’s a liberal.)

          8. Adam_T April 25, 2015

            The author of the book is a man named Schweizer and he’s a Republican. He’s working for Ted Cruz and his alleged research for the book was financed in part by the Koch brothers.

          9. ericlipps April 25, 2015

            In other words, he’s a paid propaganda specialist for the Koch apparat, and a Cruz presidential campaign operative as well, overlapping jobs if there ever were any.

          10. Adam_T April 25, 2015

            My bad, he doesn’t work on the Ted Cruz campaign, not directly anyway.

            “Peter Schweizer, author of the much-discussed book Clinton Cash, is the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a group “with close ties to a billionaire family funding Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential run” and one that “has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch,” according to Media Matters.”


            Highly doubt the Koch brothers would support Ted Cruz. I would suspect they might even support HRC over Cruz in a presidential election, though if they saw that that could actually happen, I’m sure they would try and finance a third party candidate.

          11. ericlipps April 25, 2015

            Financing a third-party candidate would be throwing heir money away. Worse (for them, anyway), assuming the candidate were right-wing (I can’t see the brothers backing a liberal), they might bleed away just enough conservative votes to guarantee a Clinton victory (assuming, of course, that Cruz made a strong enough showing to otherwise have won, which may be a stretch).

            As for supporting Clinton: not a chance. They’d support Donald Duck first. But actually, by far the most likely scenario is that they’ll support the Republican nominee, whoever it is. The next most likely is that they’d simply sit it out at the presidential level, if the GOP picked someone they really disliked for some reason or other, though I can’t imagine who that might be.

          12. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            Grammar Nazi …I’m on a phone and its hard to type on it …Have a nice weekend
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

        2. Allan Richardson April 25, 2015

          When you say something for which there is no evidence, and upon being asked for evidence, you point out that the other person has no evidence it is NOT true, you are wearing the Emperor’s New Clothes (no, not President Obama as the “Emperor,” the Emperor in an old children’s story: if you haven’t heard or read it, spoiler alert — the Emperor was naked but no one had the guts to say they couldn’t see his invisible new outfit for fear of being ridiculed as not being smart enough, until a small child pointed out).

          I have no evidence that a leprechaun lives in my pocket either. So if you deny it, I could challenge you to prove that there is no leprechaun. Get the picture?

          1. John Amado April 25, 2015

            I suspect your post is too nuanced for Jedi Boy.

          2. bikejedi April 25, 2015

            Once again I am citing the liberal investigative reporter who wrote the book detailing the direct paper trail linking the Clinton’s to the sale of Uranium to Putin …thought that was common knowledge …The rest of my post was personal observations based on the way Liberals will defend the mist criminal candidates if they think that person can win . The posters here seem to prove that out …None of you seem to be concerned with her actions at all. You all know she is wholly evil yet you will defend and support her
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

    2. FT66 April 25, 2015

      Can you please go and hang yourself with your allegations which has no base. You can’t accuse anyone without having any concrete proof ready on hand. What you have written is all about hatred. I can assure you if you will continue on this path, you will never ever win the White House. That very much I know.

      1. bikejedi April 25, 2015

        Translation …I can’t dispute a single thing you stated I just hate you because you are pointing out the truth and that will hurt Hillary …I hate you go away and hang yourself ….sweet liberal intolerance
        Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

        1. jmprint April 26, 2015

          Question is WHAT TRUTH? There is NO TRUTH in youe posting.
          Bikejedi you are and always have been here for one purpose and that’s to troll, with NO SUBSTANCE. You have rights you can continue to stay, you don’t have to go. We see right through you, so it doesn’t matter.

          1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            Whatever ….cool

            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

        2. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

          “I can’t dispute a single thing you stated I just hate you because you
          are pointing out the truth and that will hurt Hillary …I hate you go
          away and hang yourself.”

          1. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            True and the level of hate and intolerance is telling
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

      2. John Amado April 25, 2015

        It’s clear from his responses that terms like evidence, logic, and reasoning have no place in his bizarro world. It is amusing, though, how the term liberal — one that I don’t run away from as FDR, Truman, Kennedy are excellent examples of what being a liberal means.

        I love this Kennedy quote:

        “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
        …and unlike Jedi Boy, I am pleased to offer the citation: JFK, from “Profiles in Courage”.

      3. John Amado April 25, 2015

        Sorry, didn’t finish that first paragraph: It’s amusing how the term liberal drives the unthinking into paroxysms of mouth-frothing rage.

    3. ericlipps April 25, 2015

      Even if your claims were accurate, what Clinton would be guilty of isn’t TREASON, in caps or otherwise, but at most taking what wuld amount to bribes–bad enough, but unlike treason, not a capital offense (pun intended).

      But your accusations are not accurate. They are malicious misrepresentations of what actually happened. And since you don’t have any actual evidence, but are sure it must have existed (would the voices coming from your fillings lie to you?), you conclude Hillary must have destroyed it.

      This is America, where people aren’t supposed to be accused of crimes on basis of evidence the nonexistence of which supposedly proves a coverup occurred.

      1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

        No Hillary investigated herself on all of her criminal actions then gave America the double middle fingers by destroying all the evidence. That isn’t my assertion it is what she admitted to doing when she Killed her own personal server …its very telling that doesn’t seem to concern you Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

    4. ralphkr April 25, 2015

      After reading your post, bikejedi, I have one question put to you in the spirit of your post. Can you say, bikejedi, “I am an ignoramus who swallows whole every lie that FUBAR News & other ignorant conservatives spews forth”.

      1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

        OK you are an ignoramus who swallows while every lie that FUBAR news spews forth …Happy now ? By the way Ralph I don’t usually answer you because in the past you just resorted to name calling …Have a nice weekend
        Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

        1. ralphkr April 26, 2015

          That figures, bikejedi, that you are unable to tell the truth and admit that you are just another ignoramus swallowing every conservative. I have noticed that every time a conservative is confronted with facts that they immediately start accusing the person posting the truth of resorting to name calling and once again proving that the truth has a liberal bias while conservatives adore falsehoods.

          1. bikejedi April 26, 2015

            Ralph what I posted is the borne out by the fact that you can’t and didn’t even try to dispute it . Who has confronted me with any facts ? Certainly not you …in your posts so far all you did was show intolerance ….Soooooo
            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

          2. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

            Never mind the nincompoop with the GIRLY hat and the GIRLY beard. He has an inner “conflict” between real facts and his “facts”.
            ralph, please go back to your pigsty?

          3. bikejedi April 27, 2015

            Yes it sure seems so …There is a Kardashian joke in here somewhere

            Sent from my ZTE Sonata 4G, a Cricket 4G smartphone

  8. Robert Hunt April 25, 2015

    Several government departments had to approve the deal before State Department sign off, unlike the Koch’s buying off of government and quid pro quo that the GOP indulges in daily, this was a business deal that actually helped an international charity and the US, not a donation to a campaign coffer that actually only helped 1% of the nation and put money into the coffers of paid off rep’s, scientists, etc…as has become the trademark of the GOP

    1. Dominick Vila April 25, 2015

      I guess the requirement for us to get involved in the sale of a Canadian uranium company to a Russian uranium company has something to do with IAEA requirements dealing with compliance with nuclear non-proliferation agreements…
      Otherwise, the dealings of foreign companies, outside the USA, are none of our business.

  9. Eleanore Whitaker April 25, 2015

    When men like Chait stop thinking like MEN and start thinking like persons, the Clinton bashing ends..Right now, their MANHOOD depends on getting rid of Hillary..so they nit pick like hens in a farm yard. …pick a little pick a little pick a litte…and that’s all it gets them…a little less credibility.

    1. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

      Wow! This men-hating, venomous woman is certifiably crazy.

      1. emjayay April 28, 2015

        Speaking of certifiably crazy…..

        1. Louis Allen April 28, 2015

          Yeah, look at you !

    2. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

      You dear are crazier and crazier.
      EVERYBODY, even the ones that would never admit to that, are LAUGHING AT YOU, BABE.

  10. MV April 25, 2015

    But my concern is that the Clinton Foundation appears to deliver 15% of funds received to the actual NEEDS…and 70% goes to salaries and expenses, high costs for travel and lodging…and 15% is “TBD”. This means that Hillary will be weakened in the General Election ….when it might be hard to explain such high expenses to actual help ratios. (There are plenty of charitable organizations that have more than 70% go to helping, and less than 30% to operate the organization. Maybe we should have Elizabeth Warren run…she won’t be as weak a candidate in the General Election.

    1. dtgraham April 25, 2015

      I love Elizabeth Warren and everything she stands for, but it’s likely that Hillary is the only viable Democratic candidate capable of raising the kind of money needed to run for President these days. Elizabeth and Bernie Sanders would probably be financially hamstrung by their very policies.

      I recently saw a clip of a financial analyst who revealed that Wall street players have told him in private that they know Hillary will verbally beat up on them on the campaign trail, but once in office she’ll “return to normal” as they supposedly put it to him.

      1. Independent1 April 25, 2015

        My senses is that progressives can’t afford to lose either Bernie or Elizabeth out of the Senate. If the Dems are fortunate enough to get Hillary elected, she’s going to need all the help she can get in Congress if there’s any hope whatsoever at getting some progressive legislation passed between 2016 and 2020.

        If Elizabeth chose to run and actually became the nominee, I’m not one bit comfortable that Mass. voters aren’t clueless enough to replace her with another idiotic Republican like Scott Brown, just like they did back in 2009 in replacing Ted Kennedy. And what’s really unfortunate, is that I doubt seriously there are very many Mass. voters that realize the enormous damage that destroying the Dems filibuster proof majority in the Senate for the entire year of 2010 cost America and president Obama and maybe even dramatically changed history.

        Had Mitch McConnell not been able to use his fake filibuster for the entire year of 2010, there’s no telling what the Dems could have accomplished and how that may have changed the 2010 mid term elections. The last 5 years may well have been totally different – it could well be that today, it would be the Dems who would be controlling both houses of Congress and not the GOP – only if, only if Mass voters had not been so clueless as to have replaced Ted Kennedy with a Republican which prevented the Dems from virtually accomplishing anything they’ve really wanted to do over the past 5 years!!!

        1. Adam_T April 26, 2015

          Bernie Sanders is not up for reelection in 2016, so his running for President would not take him out of the Senate.

          If he did leave, there would likely be great pressure on Howard Dean to run.

          1. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            If Bernie got elected president it would take him out of the Senate and then we’d have to hope the voters of Vermont would replace him with a progressive – which is probably a better probability than Mass. replacing Elizabeth with a progressive but still not a guarantee.

            And electing a progressive president in 2016 isn’t going to do a whole lot of good if the GOP stays in control of Congress.

          2. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

            YEAH !!!! Let’s have Howard “Ding” !!!
            Oh, …. but wait ! Howard Ding is not a woman !
            That means Ding can’t run because IT’S A WOMAN’S TURN, …ANY WOMAN !!!!

          3. Adam_T April 27, 2015

            Although I should know better than to ask you, I’m curious. I was referring to Howard “Ding” running for the Senate seat in Vermont. Are you referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton or are you referring to Vermont Democrats looking for a woman to run for the Senate once Bernie Sanders (or Patrick Leahy) leave.

          4. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

            I was referring to BOTH and to neither.
            I was pointing out the MINDLESSNESS of electing a woman because “it is way past time that we have a woman as …” (you fill the position). Or the MINDLESSNESS of electing a Black as President because “it was way past time that we have a Black as President.”
            Along that same line of (stupid) thought, after we elect our very own “first woman” as President, it will be “way past time that we elect our very own “first GAY” (or “first Mexican-American”, or “first lesbian”, or “first trans-gender”!!)
            You get my meaning now?
            Leftist/liberal/socialist/”progressive” dumbasses are such pansies for EMPTY and MINDLESS symbolism!!
            They have long lost the ability to distinguish between real “substance” and empty symbolism.

          5. Adam_T April 28, 2015

            Your view that Democrats are only supporting her because she is a woman is both mindless and sexist. No doubt you feel that 80% of U.S Senators and 90% of Governors are male (and nearly all white males) is because they are ‘the most qualified for the job’.

          6. Adam_T April 28, 2015

            If anybody is still reading this, my math was off, it’s actually 88% of elected Governors are male (44 of 50), and there are now 43 male Governors as John Kitzhaber was replaced by fellow Democrat Kate Brown in Oregon. Of course, Brown was not elected Governor.

            Sorry for the minor mistake.

          7. Louis Allen April 28, 2015

            Adam, my friend:
            It’s your “brain” that was “off”, not your math.
            …. turn it back on ….
            I know, I know, ….. but at least TRY !!

          8. Joan May 8, 2015

            What would it take to turn you and your inexplicable capitalization off?

          9. Louis Allen May 8, 2015

            Here’s my answer to you:
            1) It is not my capitalization that bothers you; it is the fact that I bring up and point out the leftists’ foibles, rejection of common sense, and penchant for stupid, innefective platitudes.
            2) Go ask your fellow leftist/liberal nincompoops (Dependent1 comes to mind) to stop using capitalization to emphasize their inane, simplistic points of view.

          10. Joan May 8, 2015

            Wow omniscient and omnipresent. Given your anger issues I certainly hope your not omnipotent too.

          11. Louis Allen May 8, 2015

            What’s the matter, Joan?
            I don’t have to be any of the “omnis” you mention (perhaps without even understanding what they mean).
            I just have a little common sense, something you leftist/liberal/socialist/”progressive” nincompoops completely lack.
            To you, everything can be “solved” with a superficial “slogan”.
            And now, your new slogan: “Having elected our very first black (15 % black!!) president, it is time now to elect our very first woman as president (forget about qualifications, dear!).
            Get a life, Joan.

          12. dpaano May 28, 2015

            That’s true, you have a “little” common sense….first true thing you’ve said!

          13. Louis Allen May 28, 2015

            And having that “little common sense” makes me 50 times smarter than you.
            Because you, dear, have NONE.
            Get a life, deep anu*.

          14. Louis Allen April 28, 2015

            Adam: The “mindless” here is you, my friend.
            Read my post again.
            Even though YOU might not think that way, and even if you are unaware of what the huge majority of the “posters” on this site consider “fair” (favorite code word of libtards), the fact is that it is obscenely MINDLESS to choose/elect a woman because “it is way past time that we
            have a woman as …” (you fill the position).
            And it is obscenely MINDLESS (again, even if YOU personally do not think that way) to elect a Black as President because “it was way past time that we had
            a Black President.”
            One of the most fanatic “posters” on this site, my EX-wife Lenore WhiTTaker (she now calls herself “Eleanore Whitaker”, go figure!), along with sooooo many libtard “followers” and “disciples”, states that without a doubt, a woman HAS to be elected as our next President.
            If that were true, what I DID say was that, then, it will be way past time that we elect our very own “first GAY” (or
            “first Mexican-American”, or “first lesbian”, or “first trans-gender”!!)
            Go figure.
            Oh brother.

          15. emjayay April 28, 2015

            Don’t feed the trolls. This person is obviously a crank whose idea of a constructive comment is name calling plus the occasional RANDOM CAPITALIZATION.

          16. Adam_T April 28, 2015

            Yes, I agree with you. I pretty much said the same thing in my reply to him, but I thought there was the off chance that he might know something about the Democratic Party in Vermont that I didn’t know and my curiosity got the better of me.

        2. dtgraham April 26, 2015

          Reading that was so interesting. It’s amazing isn’t it how one single act, one event, can so dramatically change an historical timeline. You noticed that where most haven’t. Martha Coakely, and not Scott Brown, could easily have changed everything. Very easily.

          1. Independent1 April 26, 2015

            Yes! I guess what’s the most disappointing to me these days is that we’ll never know just how great a president Barack Obama may have been; had the GOP not been so determined to obstruct his every move such that 14 of them chose to meet on his inaugural night and plot how they could sabotage our economy in an effort to make him a one-term president; and of course, if Ted Kennedy hadn’t passed away when he did; or had Mass. not replaced Ted with a Republican.

            But aside from all that, being old enough to remember listening to FDR’s fireside chats with my parents, and living through so many presidents, I can in all honesty say, I’ve never lived through a president who I felt wanted as hard as Barack Obama to do whatever he could to better the lives of Americans.

            I won’t try to suggest that he’s done everything the way I wished he had, and that I haven’t at times been disappointed,
            but somehow, even when he’s left me disappointed, I’ve come away feeling that he did what he did because he felt it was the right thing to do – not because of some ulterior motive.

            And on top of that, considering how terribly bad our country was 6 plus years ago economically, and the fact that it took even FDR 13 plus years to bring America back from the Big Depression – I’m left marveling really at the fact that America is functioning as well as it is today – only 6 years after what Ben Bernanke estimated was the worst financial meltdown to ever impact America and the world; a far bigger financial calamity than even the Big Depression.

          2. dtgraham April 26, 2015

            Obama is a conundrum. I like him. I like his values, but he’s not really the transformative figure that liberals had hoped for. Liberal hopes have run up against Obama’s pragmatism very often. He seems to have a tendency to retreat instead of fighting, even when victory seemed to be at least a 50-50 proposition. He abandoned the public option in the ACA and kept Gitmo open with no hesitation, for example.

            There has been a realization among the left that this is not a bold progressive President in the way that they define it. The knock on him is that he’s not a game changer when it comes to taking on the powers that be. It does seem to me that there was a fundamental lack of willingness to fight in the beginning of his Presidency that had ripple effects throughout.

            The White House has made it clear from time to time that they don’t even like liberal activists. I think Robert Gibbs once said something along the lines of, “the professional left” wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was President.

            I don’t want to sound too critical because I do like the guy and like so much of what he says. I know he’s a populist. His controversial position on the Trans Pacific trade agreement is a good example of what I was talking about. After calling out Elizabeth Warren on it, she practically said he was full of it in rebuttal on Rachel Maddow. What is your take on the TP deal? I’d be curious to know, and to get your take on the controversy over it.

          3. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

            Dependent1 can not provide you with an (intelligent) answer because he is a certified nincompoop ….
            Oh, and also a coward!

          4. emjayay April 28, 2015

            I know it’s a common last name, but still I’m a little embarrassed that someone who I may be distantly related to can do nothing more than indulge in repeated moronic name calling at about a second grader level.

          5. Louis Allen April 28, 2015

            emja: I myself would be “a little embarrassed” if my “handle” was “emjayay”.
            You want to see a REAL moron, “emja”? Go to your bathroom medicine (yeah, that’s right, where you keep your illegal drugs).
            Is THAT the best you can come up with??!!
            Oh brother.

        3. Louis Allen April 26, 2015

          Yeah! Those stupid voters. They are always WRONG except when they elect a leftist looney.
          You are pathetic, dumbass.

    2. John Amado April 25, 2015

      What is the source for those figures?

      1. Adam_T April 25, 2015

        There is no source other than probably Fake News, Breitbart or Dimbaugh.

        There are three charity watch organizations and NONE of them have reported any such thing. Those would be the only credible sources that could report such a figure.

        These are the real figures from the Clinton Foundations audited income statements (or statement of activities as charities call their income statements) from 2012-2013:

        Program Services: $196,633,380
        Management and General: 15,633,562
        Fundraising: 10,129,160


        1. John Amado April 25, 2015

          Thanks, Adam. It’s exceedingly rare that someone provides an actual citation; the foolish and the disingenuous are constantly tossing out nonsense assertions that the gullible swallow whole.

    3. Adam_T April 25, 2015

      Your ‘concern’? So, you admit that you are a concern troll.

      There are THREE organizations that research charitable organizations and NONE of those three have reported this “15% “figure. I can only assume that you’ve heard it from Fake News or possibly Dimbaugh.

      In fact, all of the three barely comment on the Clinton Foundation (or the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation as it’s formally called) at all.

      I forget the names of the organizations, but you can easily google “charity watch” and find them for yourself.

      As I posted down below, the Clinton Foundation’s audited financial statements are not only public, they are online.

      While the financial statements are apparently being reexamined, it is only due to errors in the reporting of the status of some of the donors, there is no reports the spending of the Clinton Foundation is being reexamined.

      These are the relevant figures from the income statements (or statement of activities as charities call their income statements) from 2012-2013:

      Program Services: $196,633,380

      Management and General: 15,633,562

      Fundraising: 10,129,160


      Based on these numbers, it would take a stunning amount of cooking the books to get to this made up “15%” figure. While auditors have come under scrutiny lately, having worked for an auditor earlier in my life, I can’t imagine any self respecting audit firm being that willfully blind.

      Since you call yourself an Elizabeth Warren supporter, it’s unfortunate to see a Democrat falling for obvious right wing lies.

      1. ralphkr April 25, 2015

        Hey, Adam, just because MV would prefer Warren to run does not make him a Democrat. A lot of Republicans would love to see Warren run to get her out of Congress. She is making their true Gods (Wall Street Banksters) upset with her actions in Congress and they are positive they have a better chance against Elizabeth than Hillary.

        1. Adam_T April 25, 2015

          True, I suppose Republicans may be stupid enough in general to believe that Warren running for President would ‘get her out of Congress; but she isn’t up for reelection to the U.S Senate in 2016.

      2. docb April 26, 2015

        Problem I see is that these numbers are not ‘non-qualified’ audits. It has been my experience that this type of audit is rarely more than propaganda. Which brings about…’the reexamining of the filings’ the clintons say they are doing!!

        We shall see. It is the hint of impropriety that causes the concern.

        1. Adam_T April 26, 2015

          I used to work for an audit firm as a ‘junior auditor’, my experience is that all audit firms take the responsibility of issuing their opinion very seriously. I also don’t see where there is any mention one way or the other on what type of audit was conducted.

          In regards to the reexamining of the filings, the only mistakes found are in regards to the nature of some of the donors. There is no indication that any of the numbers were misreported.

          1. docb April 26, 2015

            I did not cast aspersions on the auditor…I just pointed out that they are non -qualified audits ordered by the Foundation. I have served on many of like Boards and they order the audits. Clintons themselves said ‘they made mistakes’.

            Sorry you miscomprehended.

          2. Adam_T April 26, 2015

            Audits are a routine part of any charity seeking tax exempt status, although possibly only for charities above a certain revenue threshold. Of course, the Clinton Foundation would easily meet those thresholds.

            There is no such thing as ‘non qualified audits’ only qualified and unqualified audits (Unless non qualified audits are some charity audit thing I’ve never heard of). The unqualified audits are the full audits.

            In regards to the ‘mistakes’:

            In a statement on its website, the Clinton Foundation responds “No. Total revenue was reflected accurately on each year’s tax form, and there was no under-reporting or over-reporting. We are in the midst of conducting a voluntary external review process and will determine whether to re-file after that process is completed. As far as we know, the only error on our tax forms was that government grants were mistakenly combined with all other contributions for three years. These grants were properly listed and broken out on audited financial statements and donors also were included on the annual donor listing. All total revenue and expenditures on these forms were accurate but as we are committed to transparency and accountability and as such, we expect to re-file.”[6] If the foregoing is correct, it would appear that the Forms 990 were substantially accurate; the issue relates to consolidating rather than specifically identifying certain donor information. There is no information indicating that the aggregate amount of reported contributions was somehow inaccurate.


            Mistakes in one area does not mean there are mistakes everywhere.

    4. Independent1 April 25, 2015

      Talking about ‘weak candidates’, they can’t get any weaker than that “cheaper by the dozen” group of TOTAL CLOWNS, that the GOP is setting up again this coming campaign season to give every American more barrels of laughs from the GOP’S ‘PRESIDENTIAL FREAK SHOWS’!!

      1. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

        No Dependent1, YOU are the CLOWN here, …. along with the idiots that give your rants a “thumbs-up” (so far, jmprint and Proud Liberal, both of whom have been certified by the state of NY to be professional dummies).

      2. dpaano May 28, 2015

        And they keeping adding more every day!!!!

        1. Independent1 May 28, 2015

          Yeah! Amazing!! I think the latest projection I saw was that there may ultimately be 15 or clowns joining the circus!!

          Apparently, the majority of conservatives have such a convoluted opinion about what the U.s. presidency is all about, that even candidates who would be lucky to get a passing grade from 8th grade these days, feel qualified to run for the office of President!!

    5. SophieCT April 27, 2015

      Your numbers are wildly incorrect.. I am CONCERNED that you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills or perhaps are merely a troll.

      1. MV April 27, 2015

        Google “clinton foundation percentage to charity” – and see the variety of articles. Even though some of the articles might be very conservative organizations…the articles should be evaluated as to whether they are slinging BS or have substance behind them.

        For example- a more recent post by The Federalist ( http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/ ) claims that a recent year’s percentage is 10%, and they link the actual Income Tax filing of the organization and show their analysis.

        Ultimately, this should be thoroughly and independently evaluated before it is too late! What is the HONEST answer? (I don’t trust Hillary – since any e-mails and other records that might support some of her claims were erased. In any civil court action – the jury or judge can make a presumption of guilt if the person destroyed records that might have proven innocence.) Better to get this resolved NOW ….than too late.

        1. dpaano May 28, 2015

          Have you checked the foundation on “Charity Navigator?”

        2. dpaano May 28, 2015

          That’s okay, MV…..Hillary doesn’t trust you either!

    6. Louis Allen April 27, 2015

      Or maybe we should have Diane Fakestein run; or maybe we should have Nancy The Witch run; or maybe we should have Barbaric Boxer run; or maybe we should have Joy Beggar run; or maybe we should have Barbaric Walters run; or maybe we should have Whoopi Golddigger run; or maybe we should have BRUCE JENNER RUN ! ANYBODY as long as it’s a WOMAN (or soon to be one!)
      Remember, The Great Prevaricator had NO QUALIFICATIONS, …. and look at how far (down the drain) he has taken our Nation!
      AND IN 2024 IT WILL BE THE VERY FIRST GAY (as far as we know, ….ahem) TURN AT BAT (Ooops!! Sorry !)

    7. dpaano May 28, 2015

      If you’ve been reading the news……Elizabeth Warren does NOT want to run for President and I don’t think any amount of wishing will make her change her mind at this point! As for Hillary, I don’t think too many people consider her a “weak” candidate….especially since she’s leading quite a bit in all the polls!

  11. Dominick Vila April 25, 2015

    When it comes to character, values, and commitment to country, one of the greatest differences involves the post presidential performance of former presidents.
    Presidents Carter and Clinton have engaged in humanitarian causes that ought to serve as a model for others to follow. Not surprisingly, President Clinton is once again being attacked by a media whose sense of morality is limited to market share.
    Presidents Ford, Bush I and II devoted their post presidential time to playing golf, Bush I spends his time parachuting, and Bush II is desperately trying to emulate Gauguin or Lautrec.

    1. Adam_T April 26, 2015

      Yes, but at least Ford was a friend to Homer Simpson.

      1. browninghipower April 28, 2015

        And President Ford was a great supporter of Betty and the Betty Ford Center. Ford was a true humble and good man. So he pardoned Nixon. He made one mistake. You can’t put him in league with the Bushes or Reagan.

        1. Adam_T April 28, 2015

          If you’re referring to my post, I didn’t! All I did was make a lame joke.

          I quite agree with you about Ford. George H W Bush and even Ronald Reagan had a lot of faults, but I also believe for the most part that they too are good men. Reagan was, for the most part, a decent guy personally, it’s just that his policies did not match his own personal actions.

  12. Jack Hughes April 26, 2015

    As has been well documented by Conason and Lyon’s excellent “The Hunting of the President,” the right-wing propaganda machine raises accusatory “questions” based on distortions, over-simplifications and half-truths without ever providing the corresponding “answers.”

    That’s all it takes to send our credulous press on a wild-goose chase for scandals that do not exist. The tactic is designed to distract voters and keep Democratic politicians on the ropes. This pattern has been repeated so often by now that one must wonder if our corporate media isn’t just credulous or lazy, but complicit in this sleazy Republican tactic of character assassination.

    1. Kemosahbee April 27, 2015

      and it works and they keep doing it due to a lazy, incurious, sound bite oriented electorate. Media is largely only interested in $ – so they’re much less concerned with how they get there than that they get there. Hate to be so cynical but…

  13. Lance Sjogren April 28, 2015

    Someone has got to be one hell of a lapdog to take this article seriously.

  14. Lance Sjogren April 28, 2015

    Ah, and I see from the comments that we have some world class lapdogs here.

  15. iizthatiiz April 28, 2015

    The number of Clinton Foundation donors who had business before Hillary Clinton’s State Department is astounding.

    To deny that these donors poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Foundation coffers, and into the Clinton’s personal pockets without any expectations whatsoever to receive something in return is a complete avoidance of reality.

    The majority of the American people have already made the decision that Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy. Her campaign cannot be salvaged, and the sooner Democrats stop clinging to Hillary’s sinking ship, and find a reputable candidate, the better.

    1. dpaano May 28, 2015

      What majority? Where did you get your information that a “majority” have already made their decision. According to all the polls, you are absolutely incorrect….much like Chait. Maybe you need to do your research too!

      1. iizthatiiz May 28, 2015

        Reported in every paper and media site today!

        Fifty-three percent of U.S. voters say former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is not honest and trustworthy,

        Thirty-nine percent say she is honest and trustworthy, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Thursday.

        The American people know a corrupt fraud when they see one.

  16. Mike McCurley April 28, 2015

    So, Mr. Chait, a self proclaimed liberal says he’ll still vote for the worn out hag but has some problems with her pay to play scam, has some reasonable doubt I suppose, and a foaming at the mouth “new progressive” immediately goes into a scorched earth attack.

    I don’t seem to recall little joey castigating harry the liar for falsely accusing Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years. But hey, it’s for the “cause” right?

    I wonder how long it will take before one brain dead little hottie after another comes forth to tearfully claim that evil nasty Mr. Chait drugged and raped them 30 years ago. That’s how the modern DNC works, folks…


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.