On Friday, the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal–often a mainstream conservative bellwether–castigated Hillary Clinton for the conflicts of interest exposed by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. And, in a moment of rare bipartisan unity, the lead editorial of the New York Times–a liberal mouthpiece–largely agreed.
The key points in the WSJ editorial, “Quid Pro Clinton“:
This is how the Clintons conduct their politics and family business, to the extent these are separate enterprises. The Clinton Foundation is a nominal philanthropy that was really created as a vast fund-raising operation to promote Bill’s post-Presidential career and Hillary’s pre-Presidential one….
All of this echoes of the 1990s, as does the Clinton method of defense, which is to deny, stonewall, assail and change the subject. Hillary has already tried to deflect the fund-raising fury by coming out in favor of rewriting the First Amendment to limit campaign contributions. So because the Clintons break the rules, she wants to impose new limits on political speech on the rest of America.
And the New York Times joins in, with “Candidate Clinton and the Foundation“: