TexasCHLforum.com

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation's progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder

The Annoyed Man wrote:The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... d-hillary/

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation's progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder

The NYT website must be getting hammered behind this story because it is completely offline at the moment of this posting.

Anyway, imagine that............the Clinton Foundation is either irresponsible—or corrupt—with money? Republicans ought to beat that drum hard in 2016.

I put this in the "Politics" forum because anything involving a potential Hillary Clinton presidency involves the future health of the 2nd Amendment.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Anyway, imagine that............the Clinton Foundation is either irresponsible—or corrupt—with money? Republicans ought to beat that drum hard in 2016.

I put this in the "Politics" forum because anything involving a potential Hillary Clinton presidency involves the future health of the 2nd Amendment.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:Do you have any faith that they will?

Jaguar wrote:Limbaugh just supposed what I was thinking, that is that this story was released at this time so it can blow over before 2016.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Bazinga.

But the changing of the guard has aggravated long-simmering tensions within the former first family’s inner circle as the foundation tries to juggle the political and philanthropic ambitions of a former president, a potential future president, and their increasingly visible daughter.

And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.