RUTHFULLY YOURS

This time there is no stained blue dress, but the Clinton machine’s rote rejection of all evidence pointing to influence peddling during the Democratic candidate’s time as Secretary of State is more of the same: we’re the innocent victims of rabid right wingers’ lies.
For Hillary Clinton there is no going back. Should she, like Macbeth, “wade no more” into her river of Emailgate deception and lies, the return journey would be “as tedious as go o’er”. It is either the White House or the Big House for the Democrats’ presidential candidate. Her best shot at winning on November 8 is to keep insisting that Donald Trump is KKK. She must also stick to the line that the FBI has cleared her of any wrongdoing while Secretary of State (2009-13) and disparage any dissenting opinion as “partisan conspiracy theorising”.

Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash – as book (2015), documentary (2016) and now graphic novel (2016) – threatens to derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign because it places Emailgate in a broader, and more ominous, framework. Schweizer’s research suggests Hillary, in agreement with husband Bill, made more than $200 million by monetising the overlap between global charitable organisations (in this case, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative) and non-global government oversight (the US Senate and Department of State). As mentioned in The Audacity of Crooked Hillary (Part 1), Hillary, Bill and daughter Chelsea have not made a cent out of the Clinton Foundation. Fifteen years of selflessly helping others – as they tell it – and the naysayers only want to knock their philanthropic enterprise. Only two weeks ago Bill Clinton tearfully reflected: “We’re trying to do good things. If there’s something wrong with creating jobs and saving lives, I don’t know what it is.”

The critics of the Clinton Foundation have not only come from the conservative side of the aisle. Ed Pilkington, writing in The Guardian in May of this year, had this to say about the film version of Clinton Cash: “Perhaps the most telling detail is the bald fact that between 2001 and 2013 Bill Clinton made 13 speeches in which he charged more than $500,000 in fees; 11 of those speeches were made within the period when his wife was working as America’s top diplomat.”

The insinuation, then, is that a smorgasbord of foreign governments and multinational companies would evade/rework US law by inviting Bill Clinton to speak at international seminars for more than half-a-million dollars a time – $750,000 in the Ericsson case – as part of a pay-to-play scheme. Donate to the Clinton Foundation and/or invite the loquacious Bill to opine on the general state of the world and the US Department of State would – as Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s personal assistant, expressed it in an email newly released by the FBI – “figure it out”.

Ed Pilkington, to be fair, does not entirely endorse Clinton Cash. For instance, he mentions the eight or so factual errors in the first edition of Schweizer’s book and, furthermore, insists that there is “no smoking gun” in the book or the film. Unquestionably, no email has emerged along these lines: ‘November 12, 2011, Hong Kong. Greetings, HRC! The Ericsson speech tonight…$750,000! Suppose I should jot down a few ideas – maybe after lunch. Don’t forget your end of the bargain. Get Ericsson off the sanctions list pronto. Cheers, Bill.’ One reason why such an email will not materialise could be that Bill Clinton apparently prefers face-to-face communication to sending off electronic missives – that, at least, is what he claims.

Chris Matthews, writing for Fortune magazine in June of this year, is another on the progressive side of politics to argue that while no documented proof exists to conclusively prove that Ericsson managed to circumvent US policy, “it was probably not a good idea for Bill Clinton to accept money from a company who had business in front of the State Department while his wife was running it.” In the rise and rise of the Clintons, from governor’s mansion in Little Rock to the White House, from US Congress to the Department of State, it is usually about this point – circumstantial evidence but no proverbial smoking gun – that the Bill & Hillary Obfuscation Show kicks into high gear: a two-part strategy of “Deny! Deny! Deny!” followed by a lethal counter-attack, consisting of a whirl of private threats and public slander directed at their accusers/victims.

The trusty stratagem appeared to slip perfectly into place in the earlier phase of the 1998 Monica Lewinsky Scandal. President Bill Clinton assured the public of his innocence: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, er, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.” President Bill Clinton, as per Chairman Bill Clinton of the Clinton Foundation, was “just trying to do good things”. Why, for heaven’s sake, are people so mean? First Lady Hillary Clinton then vilified the whistle-blowers as “a vast right-wing conspiracy”. Had Monica Lewinsky not been persuaded to save a certain semen-stained blue dress from a trip to the drycleaners, Zippergate would have played out very differently. As it was, President Bill Clinton subsequently confessed to a grand jury that he had an “improper physical relationship” with Lewinsky.

Today, caught up in the midst of Emailgate, Candidate Hillary Clinton has denounced the “conspiracy theory machine factory” – not as catchy, perhaps, as vast right-wing conspiracy but we get the drift. One comment-thread correspondent to Quadrant Online, in response to The Audacity of Hillary Clinton (Part 1), insisted that there was “a whiff of conspiracy” about the accusations against Hillary Clinton. Our missive writer is correct, but perhaps not for the reason he thinks. A “conspiracy”, we should note, does not have to be of the “tin-foil hat” variety. I argued, for instance, about the dangers of wild conspiracy theories in What JFK’s Assassination Did to America (Quadrant, November 2013). A far more plausible interpretation of conspiracy simply means the intent of two or more people to connive in order to circumvent the law or company policy. Occurrences of this kind are everyday events and, contraire Hillary Clinton, do not require total suspension of disbelief accompanied by the theme music for The Twilight Zone.

That said, to accuse someone – including, yes, Hillary Clinton – of underhanded scheming without any kind of evidence is a form of slander. Precisely because they are entrusted with power and influence, politicians are subject to every kind of allegation, foul or fair. That is why President Obama insisted that before she took up her post as Secretary of State in early 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a memorandum of understanding that guaranteed not just the separation of her leadership position in the State Department from her husband’s role as CEO of the Clinton Foundation but complete transparency on the matter. She was instructed not just to do the right thing but seen to be doing the right thing.

WASHINGTON — Throughout Donald Trump’s improbable rise to the Republican nomination, self-proclaimed Jewish neocons have mostly responded aghast. From William Kristol and Robert Kagan to Joshua Muravchick and Max Boot, the notion of a President Trump has been more than a little too much to bear.

Kristol has worked incessantly to recruit an alternative to run as an independent candidate; Kagan wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post saying Trump is bringing fascism to America; both Muravchick and Boot have said they plan to vote for Hillary Clinton; and Boot has insisted that Trump killed the Republican Party.

And yet, one of the intellectual godfathers of neoconservatism disagrees with all of them. When it comes to this roller coaster of a presidential election and the man who continues to confound virtually all of the political class, Norman Podhoretz is not exactly Pollyanna, but he does think the choice is easy, and that the vast majority of his ideological descendants are making a mistake by not embracing the GOP nominee.

“Many of the younger — they’re not so young anymore — neoconservatives have gone over to the Never Trump movement. And they are extremely angry with anybody who doesn’t share their view,” he recently told The Times of Israel. “But I describe myself as anti-anti Trump. While I have no great admiration for him, to put it mildly, I think she’s worse. Between the two, he’s the lesser evil.”

In a wide-ranging phone interview last week, the former longtime editor of Commentary magazine discussed what he thinks of the race and its implications for Israel. A critic of the Clintons since they gained national prominence decades ago, Podhoretz said the former secretary of state’s role in creating the conditions for the Iran nuclear deal is itself enough reason to support her rival.

The closer we look at the FBI’s investigative file on Hillary Clinton’s emails, the more we wonder if Director James Comey always intended to let her off the hook. The calculated release before the long Labor Day weekend suggests political favoritism, and the report shows the FBI didn’t pursue evidence of potential false statements, obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.

Mr. Comey’s concessions start with his decision not to interview Mrs. Clinton until the end of his investigation, a mere three days before he announced his conclusions. Regular FBI practice is to get a subject on the record early then see if his story meshes with what agents find. In this case they accepted Mrs. Clinton’s I-don’t-recall defenses after the fact.

The notes also show the G-men never did grill Mrs. Clinton on her “intent” in setting up her server. Instead they bought her explanation that it was for personal convenience. This helped Mr. Comey avoid concluding that her purpose was to evade statutes like the Federal Records Act. Mr. Comey also told Congress that indicting her without criminal intent would pose a constitutional problem. But Congress has written many laws that don’t require criminal intent, and negligent homicide (for example) has never been unconstitutional.

The FBI notes also blow past evidence that Clinton advisers may have engaged in a cover-up. Consider page 10 of the FBI report: “Clinton’s immediate aides, to include [Huma] Abedin, [Cheryl] Mills, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.”

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made news on Fox News’ “Hannity” Tuesday night when he produced evidence that seemed to prove that Hillary Clinton lied to FBI investigators about classified markings. During her FBI interview on July 2, Clinton claimed that as secretary of state she didn’t know that information marked “(C)” denoted confidential material. According to the FBI documents, she had speculated that a “C” in brackets was used for marking paragraphs in alphabetical order. The obvious follow-up question — “Gee, did you ever see an ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the preceding paragraphs?” — was not asked. The FBI, stunningly, took her at her word.

Assange claimed that Clinton knew full well what the (C) was for — because she has used it thousands of times herself. He dropped the bombshell at the end of his interview with Sean Hannity.

“In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton…with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

Clinton knew. And the FBI knows she knew.

Goldman Sachs has enacted a set of rules that bans the firm’s top employees from contributing to certain campaigns, including the Trump-Pence ticket.

The rules kicked in Sept. 1 and will apply only to partners of the firm. The firm says the rules were meant to remove any implication of so-called “pay to play.” Four years ago, the bank paid $12 million to settle charges that a former Boston-based banker had picked up bond underwriting business in the state while working for and contributing funds to the campaign of a then Massachusetts state treasurer and governor-hopeful, Tim Cahill.

But the people in the Trump campaign are sure to question the timing. That’s because the rules ban donations to politicians running for state or local offices, as well as donations to state officials who are seeking federal office. That makes campaign contributions to the Trump-Pence ticket a no-no. Pence is the current governor of Indiana.

At the same time, the rules do not restrict donations to Clinton-Kaine. Kaine is a U.S. Senator for Virginia, and not considered a local official under Goldman’s rules. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s CEO, has declined to say who he is supporting for president. But is known as a long-time Clinton supporter. Blankfein donated to Clinton when she ran against Obama is 2008.

Goldman declined to comment on this story.

“The policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility,” the firm wrote in the memo first seen by Politico. “All failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action.”

Fortune in July reported that SEC rules would make it nearly impossible for the Trump-Pence campaign to raise money from private equity managers, citing pay-to-play rules.

The ban doesn’t eliminate a large number of potential Trump donors. The bank has 467 partners globally, out of 30,000 plus employees. But since Goldman partners tend to be some of the wealthiest people in finance, the fact that they aren’t allowed to send money to the Trump campaign could make a difference, particularly among the race for Wall Street dollars, where Trump has been trailing Clinton but catching up lately.

Forget the new dump of Hillary Clinton emails. Forget the phony claims that the missing communications were all about wedding plans and yoga routines. Forget, too, the many requests from Doug Band in which the Clinton Foundation honcho hoped his quos (hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation) would translate into quids (e.g., special access to the secretary).

Forget them all. The most disturbing aspect about the FBI dump may not be fresh evidence of another Clinton lie. The most disturbing thing about Mrs. Clinton’s continuing email drama may be where she’s telling the truth.

Or at least a half-truth. Mrs. Clinton told the FBI it was “common knowledge” at State that she used private email. Agents further quote her as saying she “could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

However unseemly the cashing in of the Clinton family, whatever the trampling of the ethics accord the Clinton Foundation had signed with the White House, even apart from the walking conflicts-of-interests that were Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, the much larger stink here is this: Mrs. Clinton was allowed to spend her four years as secretary of state off the grid.

It isn’t so much that Mrs. Clinton set up a personal server so she would not be accountable the way normal political appointees are held accountable. It’s that no one in government stopped her. The inspector general’s report notes that when two IT officers expressed their concern in 2010 that her private email system meant federal records were not being preserved, they were told “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

As a result, when the American people finally learned about Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email for public business, it wasn’t because of a functioning civil service. It was because of a hacker. CONTINUE AT SITE

To listen to conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton practically cannot lose the presidential election. The various forecasting services, from FiveThirtyEight to CNN to Predictwise, give the Democrat about a 70% chance of winning the White House in November. Few commentators are betting on Donald Trump. Yet the available evidence shows that the race is steadily trending toward Mr. Trump, whose victory remains quite possible.

Consider the polling trends. In a four-way race including Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Mrs. Clinton’s lead is now only 2.4 points in the Real Clear Politics average. That’s down significantly from a month ago. In early August, following the Democratic Convention, Mrs. Clinton was up by six points in the YouGov/Economist survey, and eight points in the ABC/Washington Post poll.

When third parties are excluded, Mrs. Clinton does a bit better against Mr. Trump: She leads by 3.3 points in the Real Clear Politics average. Yet that figure has been cut by more than half in a month. In addition, the head-to-head matchup loses relevance each day that public dissatisfaction with the two major-party nominees does not subside. Mr. Johnson, the Libertarian, has held steady for months at about 7% support in the polling average, and the Green Party’s Ms. Stein has stuck at about 3%.

The latest surveys look even more ominous for Mrs. Clinton. Virtually all of those taken in the past week show Mr. Trump ahead, tied, or trailing but within the margin of error. The new CNN/ORC poll, out Tuesday, puts Mr. Trump up by two. Rasmussen’s release last Thursday showed 40% for Mr. Trump and 39% for Mrs. Clinton. The Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll out Friday had the same figures. The L.A. Times/USC tracking survey shows a statistical tie. The latest Investors Business Daily/TIPP survey has Mrs. Clinton up by one, but the margin of error is 3.4 points.

What accounts for this tightening? On the most straightforward level, it seems that Mrs. Clinton is coming down from the bounce she received after the successful Democratic convention. But something else has changed as well. In the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, published at the end of August, her image hit a career low: 56% of Americans viewed her unfavorably and only 41% favorably. This is a significant slide from even early August, when the same poll had Mrs. Clinton at 52% unfavorable and 46% favorable.