January 31, 2008

NY Times Sets Up Hillary For A Fall

In 2005, Bill Clinton accompanied mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, provided dictator Nursultan A. Nazarbayev with a propaganda coup that undermined American foreign policy and glossed over Kazakhstan's dismal human rights record. For Clinton's trouble, Giustra walked away with shared mining rights to 1/5 of the world's known uranium reserves.

Clinton subsequently picked up $131 million dollars in donations and pledges from Giustra for the William J. Clinton Foundation as a result, including a donation of $31.3 million within months of the mining deal being finalized.

On the surface, this sounds like peddling influence for cash—and truth be told, I can't easily come up with any other rational explanation.

This is rather a bizarre time to be publishing an accusation of an incident that occurred several years ago, with only days left before Hillary Clinton engages Barack Obama in the Super Tuesday Democratic presidential primaries, and occurring just days after the New York Times publicly endorsed Clinton as their candidate of choice.

Are we to believe that the Times editors were unaware of the pending article on Bill Clinton's apparent influence peddling when they gave Hillary their endorsement less than one full week ago?

In a large news organization it is indeed possible that the editorial staff who wrote Clinton's endorsement was unaware of the pending Bill Clinton/Giustra article... but I doubt it. And it is the Times editors that chose when to publish an article that was not locked into a specific time-sensitive news cycle, but was, as they say, "evergreen." This could have waited until after Super Tuesday, without a loss of importance... but then it would lack the colossal political influence that this story now may have.

Publishing the Clinton/Giustra article on this day, so close to Super Tuesday, seems indicative of ill intent on behalf of the Times.

Perhaps Hillary isn't their real choice for President after all.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 31, 2008 11:09 AM

Those contributions to Bill's interests are purely coincidental. Bill's activities are completely separate from Hillary's. We don't need no stinking disclosures of contributors to the Clinton Library, White House e-mails, or other matters prior to the election. Everything is above board. The Clinton's said so and if you can't trust them, who can you trust?

There's nothing to see here. Move on.


The sleaze continues apace.

Posted by: daleyrocks at January 31, 2008 11:31 AM

Is this nation so masochistic as to really entertain the thought of the Clintons back in the White House? Will this nightmare of sleaze ever end?

sound of shoe being scraped...

Posted by: in_awe at January 31, 2008 03:30 PM

The number of stories going after the Clintons on Memeorandum today is kind of astonishing. The Clintons have been a controversial topic at our site, On Day One. Both for the Clintons and against the Clintons. I have to wonder how much Barack Obama contributes -- and only by being himself, not necessarily because of his tactics.

Posted by: On Day One at January 31, 2008 03:38 PM

Well, we all know he sold pardons for cash. This would be unremarkable in that context.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2008 08:07 PM

Investor's Business Daily covers the issue here:

Posted by: buddy larsen at February 2, 2008 08:49 PM

So who is their real choice, McCain?

Posted by: Bob Agard at February 3, 2008 06:12 PM