XPost: alt.journalism.gonzo, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens   
   XPost: nm.general   
   From: investigate.pelosi@cnn.com   
      
   Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton   
   scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email   
   issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to   
   deal in things so tawdry and straightforward.   
      
   Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are   
   sprawling, multi-layered, complex things. They defy time and   
   space. They grow and burrow.   
      
   The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the   
   classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the   
   FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.   
      
   That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have   
   been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically,   
   exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her   
   dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions —   
   demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth.   
      
   But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question   
   wasn’t classification but: Why did she have a private server in   
   the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn’t   
   convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?   
      
   Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually   
   walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the   
   server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she   
   did 30,000 emails — at will.   
      
   But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even   
   taking office. It’s clear what she wanted to protect from   
   scrutiny: Clinton Foundation business.   
      
   The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a   
   charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money   
   from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc.   
   Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices,   
   travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections,   
   produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage   
   of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton   
   Restoration.   
      
   Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago,   
   emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials   
   contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for   
   foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s   
   “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous   
   Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.   
      
   Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No   
   involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the   
   next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the   
   secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.   
      
   To be sure, Bahrain, home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, is an   
   important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to   
   go through a foundation — to which his government donated at   
   least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is   
   telling.   
      
   Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that more than   
   half the private interests who were granted phone or personal   
   contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the   
   foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.   
      
   Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.   
      
   What a long way we’ve come. This is the very last line of   
   defense. Yes, it’s obvious that access and influence were sold.   
   But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors   
   received something tangible of value — a pipeline, a permit, a   
   waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling — in exchange.   
      
   It’s hard to believe the Clinton folks would be stupid enough to   
   commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might   
   be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands   
   more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.   
      
   On the face of it, it’s rather odd that a visible quid pro quo   
   is the bright line for malfeasance. Anything short of that — the   
   country is awash with political money that buys access — is   
   deemed acceptable. As Donald Trump says of his own donation-   
   giving days, “when I need something from them .?.?. I call them,   
   they are there for me.” This is considered routine and   
   unremarkable.   
      
   It’s not until a Rolex shows up on your wrist that you get   
   indicted. Or you are found to have dangled a Senate appointment   
   for cash. Then, like Rod Blagojevich, you go to jail. (He got 14   
   years.)   
      
   Yet we are hardly bothered by the routine practice of presidents   
   rewarding big donors with cushy ambassadorships, appointments to   
   portentous boards and invitations to state dinners.   
      
   The bright line seems to be outright bribery. Anything short of   
   that is considered — not just for the Clintons, for everyone —   
   acceptable corruption.   
      
   It’s a sorry standard. And right now it is Hillary Clinton’s   
   saving grace.   
      
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bribery-   
   standard/2016/08/25/958e4eb6-6ae8-11e6-ba32-   
   5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html?utm_term=.7230f78a3af9   
                       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)