Ceterum censeo; Hillary delenda est.

(Can I work for the Post? Can I? Huh? Can I?)

AH, it might be a nice way to employ her, if they, like, paid her, which they don't....so your point is what?

Democrats are evil: Absence of actual evil is no proof of innocence. (Thank you, late great Supreme Court Justice William Rhenquist!)

Therefore, we can only expect incriminating "facts" to be made up or distorted about Democrats, because the "facts" sound true anyway...

Look! Al Gore's house uses electricity!!!!11!1! Teh hypocrit!!!

My impression too.

I read this article unable to figure out just how it's a scandal that Hillary forget to file the papers indicating that she gives more to charity than her enemies have supposed.

This is pretty meager stuff

Nonsense. Don't you believe public officials should tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Hillary didn't do that and the public should be notified about it. Pretty bad you're defending her unethical actions.

But also charities can be a method to funnel money from political donors who want to give more to a candidate than the law allows. The charity Hillary didn't mention was a family run charity. Both Bill and Chelsea help run it. I suspect she didn't mention it because she didn't want the right roots to notice it and determine if there was any liberal political donors giving the Clintons extra money via the family run charity. Of course my suspicions might not be correct, but I think we should at least investigate it.

What next? A page 1 story that Bill and Hillary overpay their federal taxes by not taking every deduction they're entitled to?

Seems like the charity is a thinly veiled excuse to funnel her money and provide her employment.

Chelsea Clinton already has a job, at a hedge fund in NY. Her position as board director is charitable and provides her no payment.

American Hawk, how would you know how much electricity Al Gore's house uses? Have you been reading his power bills?

You know that stealing someone's mail is a federal offense. Not to mention stalking a former Vice President.

Add to that fact that your a foreign national, I think the Department of Homeland Security might be interested in your activities Hawk.

Very interested.

This is par for the course from Solomon, who at this point is probably taking under the table payments from the GOP to churn out this stuff. Still, I'd always assumed the Post had editors, people whose job it was to assess stories for relevance and accuracy and had final cut on whether they got in the paper or not. Seems I was wrong....

And when, exactly, can we expect follow-up stories on McCain's, Giuliani's, and Romney's finances?

AH: "Hillary Clinton is listed as secretary and treasurer, Bill Clinton as president and the couple's daughter, Chelsea, as a director. None takes any compensation." Read The F'in Article! It's on the first page!

AH, Al... Are you guys serious? I'm sure there are some actual scandals with which you can ding Clinton. I think Occam's razor is best used in this case. Pending further evidence, we should probably adopt the simplest explanation - the Clinton's donate a lot of money, and lots of rich people have private foundations. Miscoding is just as likly a mistake as it is anything nefarious, but we don't have to make any baseless assumptions. Furthermore, assuming for a moment that the foundation is being used as a back-channel financial funnel, you had better believe it's legal, and that nearly every other national politician is using similar means - these campaign machines aren't stupid, and they tend to follow the letter of the law (if not the spirit, anyway...).

Seriously. What is it about the Clintons that galvanize conservatives so much? Is it that Bill Clinton's approval ratings were in the high 50s - some say low 60s - when he left office? Despite Republican's best efforts? Is it because conservatives were too stupid to nominate quality Republicans during the 2000 primaries? Is it because they know, in their heart of hearts, that George W. Bush is a terrible conservative, and an even worse President? I don't know, but it's fun to speculate. :)

Too bad they can't nominate a Zombie Eisenhower.

Kevin, you forgot that Hillary is a Clinton, so the Liberal Mediau can say or write anything about her that they want.

Just remember their Talking Points: she's Calculating, Polarizing, Scripted, as well as Cautious, Inauthentic, and Ambitious and Moving-To-The-Right.

Just remember what those Washingtonians did to that phony Al Gore and that Frenchman, John Kerry.

drudge isn't news. he's a gossip whore. reference accordingly.

Hey, there are probably dozens of people being paid to dig up dirt on any and all Democrats.

You can certainly expect more "dirt" to appear now, and into the future. 'Tis the nature of the political game, these days.

Heck, someone's bound to find evidence that Obama once smoked a Pall Mall. No filters! Oh, the horror!

Oh, the humanity!

Solomon made his name in the AP through lurid true-crime stories in the Midwest, and then in D.C. through breathless repetition of Clinton-era "scandals" to become the AP's assistant bureau chief in the capital. Now he's "director of multimedia investigative reporting".

Media establishment types like Solomon still can't shake their hatred of Bill, because, although he's establishement now, he came from humble roots, and the media establishment absolutely delight in trampling on the poor. They have to constantly remind Bill and themselves that he was the exception, and that he'll always be a dumb, horny, sneaky hillbilly at the end of the day.

Hillary is a valid target in their minds because she's married to the hillbilly. And of course, powerful women are hated by the men in the media establishment.

Keep in mind, too, that this supposed "scandal" isn't about money Senator Clinton is keeping but money she's giving away to charity.

3,000 people died for Clinton's hummers. I'm sorry if you can't take that seriously.
Posted by: American Hawk

Then you'd be very sorry, since no one would take that statement seriously.

With apologies to Gary Larson, I think what conservatives see when they read these kinds of stories is something like this:

"Blah blah blah Hillary blah blah blah controversy blah blah blah $$$$$ blah blah blah died blah blah."

I read the article and was shocked to discover that Bill and Hillary gave a lot of money to charity. I was even more shocked to discover that she screwed up some Senate disclosure form by failing to disclose she had an interest in the Clinton family charity, but not other forms that provided the same information. What a scandal. The shame of it all.

Isn't this the 2nd or 3rd gotcha without a gotcha John Solomon has served up in the last few weeks. Does he every have any meat in his stories.

Not sure which is more pathetic: What passes for investigative journalism or the running commentary on said journalism by our local goobers.

I'll go with the journalism... the commentary by Al, and AH is laugh out loud comedy.

Tanks for the morning entertainment, kids.

AH squawks:

Chelsea Clinton is the director, eh? Nepotism, much?

It their family's charity, you dumbshit. If you were a real American instead of a pathetic wannabe, you might understand such things.

The story itself freely concedes that information on the foundation is publicly available (although it does so through the words of a Clinton spokesman, when it's an objectively verifiable fact), and indeed the on-line Post helpfully links to the foundation's Form 990s.

The suggestion that the Clintons were hiding something is crazy -- if you've disclosed it to the world, how is it hidden?

There are some very strange editorial judgments being made at the Washington Post.

Oh, so it's Drudge that's the stalking mail stealer. And your applauding his crimes, is that it AH?

And nobody died as a result of Clinton's hummer. But 6,000 Americans (and counting!) died because of Bush's month-long vacation.

3,000 people died for Clinton's hummers. I'm sorry if you can't take that seriously.

Perhaps he was distracted by a bullshit impeachment... or perhaps he was hindered by a Republican Congress who tried to slap him every time he used the military...

Or, perhaps, 3,000 people died for Bush's month-long Crawford vacations. Who knows? It's a BS statement, and you know it. Bush would not have acted any different than Clinton, nor would have Reagan.

Solomon has long been a hatchet man for the GOP. Josh Marshall has been following his knack for ginning up non-stories into full blown scandals for quite some time now. That he was moved from the AP to a position at the WaPo just in time for the primary season should come as no surprise to anyone.

This makes two threads today that have been hijacked at the top by two separate groups of wingnut trolls.

Stefan >"...And when, exactly, can we expect follow-up stories on McCain's, Giuliani's, and Romney's finances?"

*sound of crickets*

don`t hold your breath

*more cricket sounds*

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.� - Otto von Bismarck

Anyone from the WaPo reading this thread? You should hang your heads in shame.

ah: There is something galling about a president who didn't deal with Al Qeada because he was busy getting Oval Office blowjobs.

well..

if clinton was sooo bad...in fighting al queda

name one thing bush did to correct this...

before 9-11...

just one thing...

name one thing bush did to correct this... before 9-11... just one thing...

Obviously Bush's extended vacations were an attempt to prevent him from getting blow jobs in the Oval Office.

There is something galling about a president who didn't deal with Al Qeada because he was busy getting Oval Office blowjobs.

Well, there would be, if that had ever happened.

Clinton fought al-Qaeda. The Clinton Administration warned Bush that al-Qaeda in particular and terrorism in general were major issues that they needed to continue to deal with. The Bush Administration decided they weren't interested, until 3,000 people died and provided the Bush Administration the excuse to attack the rule of law, due process, civil liberties, and personal freedoms in the US.

In the world of those who critize her, 100K is chump change.

hats off to disputo.

This isn't the first piece of cheap shot journalism from WaPo on Hillary. When she first came to the Senate and bought her house in DC, the Post had a field day trying to create a pseudo scandal out of how much her house cost. A house which seemed fairly modest compared to many in DC. Yellow journalism. Somehow, the expensive lifestyles of republicans are off limits to the WaPo writers.

So, the ghost of Whitewater has risen already.

And wouldn't it be interesting if the trolls applied the same standard to their guys that they do to the Clintons?

Better trolls, please.

The University of Arkansas is UA. AU is the always flirting with losing their accreditation Auburn University.

Obviously Bush's extended vacations were an attempt to prevent him from getting blow jobs in the Oval Office.

Which explains why Lewis "the Scooter" Libby was so frequently seen wearing a Lobster Bib when entering the Oval Office and why the White House is so afraid of his testimony!

I don't think this holds a candle to the issue of what color pantsuit Hillary is wearing. I expect that to dominate coverage of her campaign. As well it should.

This just in; The Bush Mansion in Crawford Texas Electric bill is 35 times that of the average household. All those trips AF1 does to Texas could fuel 100 cars for a year.The amount of air Condi Rice uses to Blow her bullshit at us would be enough air for 24 people for a uear.Man this is kinda fun.

And when, exactly, can we expect follow-up stories on McCain's, Giuliani's, and Romney's finances?

Not to mention their mistresses.

Solomon's last front-page scoop (John Edwards sold his house to some guy) was bad enough that even the Post obudsman declared that "It seemed like a 'gotcha' without the gotcha."

And yet the Post keeps right on publishing this guy's scat on the front page. Boggles the mind.

Do you read the news? http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Drudge is not news.

3,000 people died for Clinton's hummers. I'm sorry if you can't take that seriously.

Umm Nooo. 3000 people died because W Bush couldn't be bothered and discounted everything the Clinton administration warned him about. Then, he compounded that by getting another 3000 US military killed and countless Iraqis needlessly. But thanks for lying you hopeless fool.

Everyone is so interested in calling Hawk on his BS, it seems no one even cares about the article's BS.

Thank you, Kevin, for bringing this horse manure propaganda & its absurdity to our attention. At least the WaPo had sense enough to keep it off the front page of their web feeds.

TRYING TOO HARD....

Hell, I'd say Solomon is barely trying at all. He's basically mailed in his last 2 or 3 Democratic "scandals". He's brewed up another batch of weak tea here. What pisses me off is that the Post continues to enable this dickhead.

Stefan: And when, exactly, can we expect follow-up stories on McCain's, Giuliani's, and Romney's finances?

I don't know exactly, but it will be soon enough. Even 30 year old suspicions will become news again.

I'm convinced that all Political Analysts are journalism whores (a.k.a. gossip columnists).

How serious and widespresd is this oversight? Is it akin to a "Parking Ticket" or "Careless Driving" or "Vehicular Manslaughter"?

Maybe the AEI headline writers misplaced some decimal points or something.
Posted by: spider

I guess those AEI guys at that "nonpartisan" tennesseepolicy.org did leave out a few things, eh spider?

Oh well ... I guess you'll learn eventually.

Two points of clarification:

1) Foundations are set up for two primary reasons - to provide funding to causes that wealthy individuals favor and as tax shelters. Virtually all wealthy individuals have them and use them as wealth management tools, including Richard Mellon-Scaife and Steve Forbes.
2) The mythology behind the Hillary-cattle futures faux scandal always implies that James Blair was an attorney for Tyson Foods while Hillary traded cattle futures and therefore was privvy to some sort of inside information about livestock prices. That is false. Blair was an attorney in private practice when Hillary was trading cattle futures and joined Tyson Foods several months after Hillary's last trade. To my knowledge, there is no law prohibiting one attorney in private practice from giving another attorney in private practice investment advice. You can read about it in the book, Fools for Scandal by Gene Lyons.

Too bad Mrs. Clinton could not deal occassionally in the commodities and stock markets, but everyone else could.

And if Karl Rove and his smear brigade think they can make traction against Mrs. Clinton on behalf of a weaker candidate by replaying the Whitewater matter, fine. Let 'em try. But the fact is that both Mrs. Clinton and her husband were fully absolved of any wrongdoing vis a vis Whitewater after one of the most exhaustive and expensive investigations by Congress in history.

And here's the really interesting thing about that investigation -- a fact not well known. At its outset, both The Associated Press and The New York Times sent crack investigative reporters to Arkansas to look into the matter. Both independently reported back that there was nothing to it as far as the Clinton's were concerned. Nevertheless, The AP and The Times reportedly every detail and then some of the subsequent Republican Party-inspired investigation as if they did not know it was nonsense. The outcome, which both news organizations gave little space, as did other news organizations, that there was nothing to it as far as the Clinton's were concerned ratified what The AP and The Times investigators had reported years before.

The fact that the Clintons were completely and totally cleared of course means nothing to Rove and his smear brigades. I would be surprised, however, if it works because a rehash of stale old charges against them are so easily refuted by the final Whitewater report. Again, the can try.

jim bob:

Remember that it was the New York Times and reporter Jeff Gerth who started the Whitewater ball rolling, with his factually-challenged and error-riddled front-page article on March 7th, 1992. In it, he dredged up all of the false allegations (i.e. conflicts of interest, real estate misdeeds), that the Clinton spent the 1990's and millions of dollars refuting. It's all debunked in the book I reference above.

TCD

To suggest your first commodity trade would be as esoteric as Hillary's is analogous to saying your first dive into a swimming pool would be a triple half pike with a twist. It's more likely that OJ Simpson is innocent than it is that Hillary wasn't being paid off by these fictitious trading accounts. Anyone who has convinced himself that this issue was bogus has a high gullibility quotient.

kind of like you, minion?