There may be blood in the water but we've seen this movie before!
When the news broke in the New York Times (not Fox News, not Rush Limbaugh) that the Clintons had raked in hundreds of millions of dollars from shady sources many of whom had business dealings with the U.S. State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State it looked like a potentially fatal blow to her campaign for president.
But then, the old Clinton two step started. First, Clinton defenders dismissed the original source, Peter Schweizer, who wrote the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” as a right wing hit man. But then the Times and other news organizations did independent reporting which confirmed much of what Schweizer said.
The latest revelation comes in another NY Times report by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal." It reads like a how to manual for a dirty money scandal. The Clintons raked around $145 million for them and their foundation from a group that wanted U.S. approval for a plan that led to Russia cornering the world market on uranium and controlling 20% of U.S. uranium production.
Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the Clinton Foundation is refiling tax returns to correct "errors" that omitted the disclosure of foreign contributions.
Any Republican Candidate Would Be Forced to Withdraw
If the similar news featured a GOP presidential candidate, he or she would be forced to withdraw from the race and it's likely that the Department of Justice would be launching a full investigation. But this is the Clintons. What's going on here?
If this news had broken in the final weeks of a presidential campaign Hillary would be sunk. Isn't it interesting that the New York Times and other liberal news sites decided now was the time to launch this bombshell eighteen months before the election? This gives Hillary plenty of time to do the usual two step. That's already started with Hillary's machine insisting there is "no evidence" of any wrongdoing. One wonders if the "evidence" was erased along with those other tens of thousands of emails Hillary destroyed?
And do you remember last year when Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor was being interviewed about what happened in the White House after the Benghazi attack and responded with the flippant "dude, this was two years ago." Tommy works for Hillary now! If this issue arises during Presidential debates Hillary can just stonewall and say "that was eighteen months ago. Can't we get back to discussing the issues the American people care about?"
There are some who speculate that the Times et. al are seeking to damage Hillary early and drive her from the race to make way for another candidate. That assumes that Democrat primary voters care whether Hillary is a corrupt grifter or not. Should we believe that the same voters who voted to return Obama to office really care about honesty and ethics in presidential candidates? Nonsense!
What we are seeing now is a concerted effort to get the worst of the news out now and then ignore it later and attack anyone who dares to mention it! Democrats will vote for Hillary no matter what!