[guest post to JVW]

From The Daily Caller (hat tip to Powerline) comes another tale of typical progressive hypocrisy. As part of his valedictory of ill-informed moral preening and ugly pointless grandstanding, President Obama on Tuesday celebrated the whiny and largely-contrived Equal Pay Day by unveiling a “monument” (their words, not mine) to women’s rights in front of the Sewall-Belmont House near the Capitol Building, which was once the home of the National Woman’s Party (how interesting that they used the singular “woman” instead of the plural “women” back then; as if females were once thought of as diverse individuals each with different goals and aspirations instead of just another needy interest group in the left-wing grievance coalition). Anyway, the President delivered his usual bit of demagogic and fatuous red meat for the crybullies:

“I’m not here just to say we should close the wage gap,” the president told the gathering which included Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, tennis star Billie Jean King and women’s rights activists. “I’m here to say we will close the wage gap. And if you don’t believe that we’re going to close that wage gap, then you need to come visit this house.”

[. . .]

“Equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental principle of our economy,” Obama said . “It’s the idea that whether you’re a high school teacher, a business executive or a professional soccer player or tennis player, your work should be equally valued and rewarded — whether you are a man or a woman. It’s a simple ideal. It’s a simple principle. … But it’s one where we still fall short. … We don’t want some of our best players on the sidelines.”

Naturally, no mention was made of the Obama Administration’s troubled history with its own wage gap, which this blog covered two years ago. After being called out by even relatively friendly sources for latching on to the ridiculous contention that women only make 77 cents to the dollar proportionate to men, the President’s teleprompter has of late been careful to directly avoid repeating that misleading claim. Yet holding this ceremony on a day chosen specifically to advance the bogus 77 cents claim is a clear indicator that the President remains sympathetic with this malarky.

But that typical Obama drivel doesn’t earn our special commendation for this week’s exercise in progressive hypocrisy. Comes now Her Clintonic Majesty, Mrs./Senator/Secretary Hillary! Rodham Clinton, the once and future inevitable President of these United States of America. In honor of this contrived observance of Equal Pay Day, which also commemorates the anniversary of the official launch of her dreary campaign, she (or, more likely, one of her minions) wrote a post on the earnest yet dopey blog site Medium seeking to “dispel the myths” that this is anything short of crisis demanding immediate government involvement. While being very careful to avoid directly comparing wages paid for similar work, similar hours, and similar educational attainment, the post from the Clinton campaign machine still falls back upon the general complaint that women make 79 cents on the dollar in comparison to men (up two cents from 2014!), and further break it down to the specious lamentation that black women make a mere 60 cents and Hispanic women a paltry 54 cents. Naturally, her campaign platform asserts that all this can be solved by involving more trial lawyers and hiring more bureaucrats in both the public and private sector to monitor wages.

The New York Post has a pretty great take-down of Mrs. Clinton’s balderdash written by Carrie Lukas (seriously, check out the link if only for the chuckle-worthy grotesque picture of Hillary!) which points out an interesting discovery made by the Daily Caller while reviewing the 2013 tax return from the Clinton Foundation: male executives at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation made 38% more than female executives, which, when you do the math conversion, means that female executives made about 72 cents on the dollar relative to male executives in 2013, even lower than the bogus pay gap statistic that Herself was propagating back then. Also, the Clinton Foundation apparently had roughly three times as many male as female executives that year.

Be prepared for the shock, but it seems that no mainstream media outlet has picked up on the Clinton Foundation pay gap story and Hillary!’s attendant hypocrisy. And the urban elite media axis wonders why we need an alternate media.

– JVW

Then went on a jihad against Peter Schweizer, saying he had proved nothing with his book about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.

…which Georgie had contributed to.

ABC says no harm no foul. We’ll see.

Sean Davis at The Federalist sums up the takeaway nicely:

A blockbuster report in the New York Times today details how Hillary Clinton’s non-profit organization raked in millions from the Russian nuclear industry while Hillary was negotiating a deal to allow the Russians to acquire Uranium One, one of the world’s largest uranium mining companies.

From that NYT article:

[T]he sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Barack Obama needs to be asked whether he exempted these transactions from being disclosed — or reported to the IRS. Yeah, turns out Hil and Bill forgot to tell the IRS too:

Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

“Errors”!

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation’s work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period.

Whoops!

Meanwhile, Bill’s speaking fees doubled and even tripled after Hillary became Secretary of State. I can’t see any potential for corruption there, can you??

But just how involved was Hillary, really, in all this? All we need to do is just check her emails, and then we can . . .

Oh. Right.

Nothing to see here.

It all started with the news reported this weekend that the largest donor to the Clinton Foundation has traded with Iran, possibly violating our sanctions against Iran. Yet, oddly, his company was not penalized by the organization charged with the responsibility of penalizing those who violate our trade policy: Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

And now we hear that the prophecy that Rand Paul has been telling us about is coming true: even more revelations about the Clinton Foundation. Namely, a book that has looked into the contributions made to the Foundation, and is joining with major media outlets to investigate:

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.”

But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Ouch. That sounds like Big Media actually being interested in her corruption.

Things not looking so good for the First Woman President.

How about that:

A CBS News investigation has found that at least one foreign company with close ties to its government has been giving generously to the foundation run by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

Since its founding, the Clinton Foundation has invested millions each year for work in fighting AIDS and empowering women, but its recent uptick in donations from foreign governments has been raising questions about the potential influence on Hillary Clinton, as she gets ready to run for president.

The foundation has raised at least $42 million from foreign governments – and according to an analysis by CBS News – at least $170 million from foreign entities and individuals.

One donor – Rilin Enterprises- pledged $2 million in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation’s endowment. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate and run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is also a delegate to the Chinese parliament. Public records show the firm has spent $1.4 million since 2012, lobbying Congress and the State Department. The firm owns a strategic port along the border with North Korea and was also one of the contractors that built the Chinese embassy in Washington.

Campaign finance laws prevent foreign contributions to candidates in federal elections. But foreigners who wish to influence potential presidents can always get away with sending giant contributions to an entity like the Clinton Foundation. The CBS News story says the foundation has raised around $42 million from foreign sources.

I’m tired of the Clintons finding cute loopholes to do little end runs around every rule in the book, aren’t you?

Let’s just pass an explicit law that says the rules don’t apply to the Clintons and be done with it.

Hillary is sailing through her confirmation hearings. In a suck-up session on Tuesday, Senators heaped praise on Clinton. Jim DeMint assured her that he would have no tough questions for her about the Clinton Foundation.

The foundation’s list of donors was released just before Christmas, and has not received proper attention from the media or Senators. One exception is this column by Diana West of the Washington Times. West explains that the Clinton Foundation received between $10 million and $25 million from Saudi Arabia; $5 million from the Zayed family, which has donated to “a family think tank for anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and jihadists,” $1 million to $5 million from the Dubai Foundation, owners of a company that wanted to run security for America’s ports, $1 million to $5 million from Hezbollah fan Issam Fares; and money from Chinese censorship collaboraror alibaba.com. But my favorite is the Alavi Foundation.

Writing at Forbes.com, Rachel Ehrenfeld recently reported that this group, which supports Iranian causes, gave the Clinton foundation between $25,000 and $50,000 on Dec. 19 – the very day Alavi Foundation President Farshid Jahedi was indicted on federal charges related to an investigation of the foundation’s relationship with Iran’s Bank Melli. (The donation, according to Ehrenfeld’s report, also came two days after the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated Alavi’s partner, the New York-based ASSA Corp., as a terrorist entity.) Both the Alavi Foundation and Bank Melli, Ehrenfeld reported, have been “recognized as procurement fronts for Iran’s nuclear program,” with Bank Melli being designated in 2007 as a terrorist entity.

I can’t imagine how any of this might complicate Hillary’s role as Secretary of State. Can you?

Yesterday, Clinton finally faced a few tepid questions about the Clinton Foundation, and the L.A. Times fails to tell us the extent of the problem.

The L.A. Times story today mentions virtually none of the rather stunning details I discuss above. The paper tells us only that Senators have a generalized concern that foreign contributions “could pose potential conflicts of interest.” The story quotes Dick Lugar as encouraging Clinton to exclude foreign donations. This is followed by a quote from Hillary, dripping with that classic Clinton self pity: “No matter what we do, there will be those that [claim] conflicts,” she said.

Then we are told how transparent Hillary and Bill have been:

Under an agreement with the Obama transition team, the Clinton foundation made public a list of its past donors and promised to publish annually the names of its donors and to submit future foreign donations to a State Department ethics review.

Clinton’s foundation has worked to provide healthcare, particularly for people with AIDS in underdeveloped countries. It also promotes economic growth in Africa and Latin America, combats global climate change and works to solve such problems as childhood obesity in the U.S.

Matt McKenna, communications director for the former president, said by e-mail that the Clintons were “by far the most financially transparent former first couple in American history.”

Yippee.

L.A. Times editors do a somewhat better job in an editorial, which accurately says that the Clinton Foundation

has a history of accepting donations from tyrants and corrupt businessmen. Foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Australia, the Dominican Republic and Kuwait, have given millions to the Clinton Foundation . . . Then there are highly questionable donations, such as the $500,000 he was paid by a Japanese American business for a speech he never gave, and that he later donated to the foundation

This last fact, editors note, was reported by the L.A. Times on Tuesday, and huzzah for that.

But even that article failed to document the extent of the questionable donations received by the Clinton Foundation. Maybe there has been another past article that did a better job; if so, none of it appeared in today’s article about the confirmation hearings.

The fact that this is not all being more widely reported is a disgrace. And the fact that Senators aren’t questioning her about it more closely is as well.

[guest post by Dana]

Since the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein was unsealed on Monday, there appears to be a disturbing concern on both sides of the political aisle that the other side is not wholly committed to the belief that everyone found to have been involved in the alleged sex trafficking crimes of Jeffrey Epstein should be held accountable. No exceptions. It’s indecent that partisan politics and the sick reverence of politicians could trump the rape and trafficking of children. And yet there are partisans who have their finger-pointing “whataboutisms” ready, just in case their guy is implicated.

With that, since the indictment was made public, the two most focused upon individuals connected to Epstein, once upon a time, are former President Bill Clinton and current President Donald Trump. In the past few days both men have commented on Epstein.

In 2002, Clinton said this about Epstein:

“Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science,” Clinton says through a spokesman. “I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS.”

In what seemed to be a puzzling preemptive strike, Clinton’s press secretary released a statement on the former president’s behalf just hours after the indictment was unsealed. Clinton firmly denied knowing anything about Epstein’s “terrible crimes”:

President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has recently been charged in New York. In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the Clinton Foundation. Staff, supporters of the foundation, and his Secret Service detail traveled on every leg of every trip. He had one meeting with Epstein in his Harlem office in 2002, and around the same time made one brief visit to Epstein’s New York apartment with a staff member and his security detail. He’s not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida.

In 2002, Trump said this about Epstein:

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

On Monday, commenting on the latest developments concerning Epstein, President Trump said:

“I know him, just like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,” Trump said. “People in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach.”

“I had a falling out with him a long time ago,” Trump continued. “I don’t think I’ve spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan. I was not a fan of his. That I can tell you. I was not a fan.”

I’ll also include Trump’s comments about about Bill Clinton (and Jeffrey Epstein): “Nice guy — uh, got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island, with Jeffrey Epstein,” Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in 2015, referring to Clinton’s connections with Epstein. “A lot of problems.”

Both Clinton and Trump are known liars who lack a functioning moral compass. And they’ve both demonstrated this, ad nauseam, with regard to the opposite sex. I have absolutely no idea if they were involved with the alleged behavior of Epstein, or how much they knew about what he was up to, if anything. At this point in time, nothing would surprise me.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

The day after the election, Slate published a post-mortem about the Democratic party’s enormous loss. Writer Jim Newell held responsible the DNC, a number of loyal Clinton supporters, including the media, long-time members of the Clinton machine, lawyers, and of course, Hillary herself (although he ultimately let her off the hook a bit by holding more responsible those who enabled her…):

The Democrats will now control next to nothing above the municipal level. Donald Trump will be president. We are going to be unpacking this night for the rest of our lives, and lives beyond that. We can’t comprehend even 1 percent of what’s just happened. But one aspect of it, minor in the overall sweep, that I’m pretty sure we can comprehend well enough right now: The Democratic Party establishment has beclowned itself and is finished.

I think of the lawmakers, the consultants, the operatives, and—yes—the center-left media, and how everything said over the past few years leading up to this night was bullshit.

The midterm losses? That was just a bad cycle, structurally speaking; presidential demographics would make up for it. The party establishment made a grievous mistake rallying around Hillary Clinton. It wasn’t just a lack of recent political seasoning. She was a bad candidate, with no message beyond heckling the opposite sideline. She was a total misfit for both the politics of 2016 and the energy of the Democratic Party as currently constituted. She could not escape her baggage, and she must own that failure herself.

Theoretically smart people in the Democratic Party should have known that. And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her. Every power-hungry young Democrat fresh out of law school, every rising lawmaker, every old friend of the Clintons wanted a piece of the action. This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.

We should blame all those people around the Clintons more than the Clintons themselves, and the Clintons themselves deserve a ridiculous amount of blame. Hillary Clinton was just an ambitious person who wanted to be president. There are a lot of people like that. But she was enabled. The Democratic establishment is a club unwelcoming to outsiders, because outsiders don’t first look out for the club. The Clintons will be gone now. For the sake of the country, let them take the hangers-on with them.

With that, as Newell examines the state of the current Democratic party, he suggests that going forward, a new and improved Democratic party needs to be established, and it must not look like the old party. Unfortunately, he recognizes that blaming others for the huge losses will likely prevent it from making the changes necessary to win an election in the near future:

Whoever takes over what’s left of the Democratic Party is going to have to find a way to appeal to a broader cross section of the country. It may still be true that in the long term, Republicans can’t win with their demographics, but we found out Tuesday that the long term is still pretty far away. Democrats have to win more white voters. They have to do so in a way that doesn’t erode the anti-racist or anti-sexist planks of the modern party, which are non-negotiable. If only there were a model for this.

The few Democratic leaders who remain are going to say that it was just a bad note struck here or there, or the lazy Bernie voters who didn’t show up, or Jim Comey, or unfair media coverage of Clinton’s emails, to blame for this loss. I am already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College, which until a few hours ago was hailed as the great protector of Democratic virtue for decades to come, and Republicans were silly for not understanding how to crack the blue “wall.” They will say, just wait for Republicans to overreach. Then we’ll be fine.

Apparently the Democrats have already decided that the new party will look a lot like the old party:

Chelsea Clinton is being groomed for the New York seat held by Rep. Nita Lowey.

Chelsea could run for the seat in NYC’s 17th Congressional District once Lowey, a respected, 79-year-old career politician with nearly 30 years in office, decides to retire, we have exclusively learned.

Lowey’s district includes parts of Rockland and Westchester counties and, conveniently, Chappaqua, the Clinton family home base.

…

A source told us, “While it is true the Clintons need some time to regroup after Hillary’s crushing loss, they will not give up. Chelsea would be the next extension of the Clinton brand. In the past few years, she has taken a very visible role in the Clinton Foundation and on the campaign trail. While politics isn’t the life Hillary wanted for Chelsea, she chose to go on the campaign trail for her mother and has turned out to be very poised, articulate and comfortable with the visibility.”

–Dana

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: We just have to make a pact that we will never again vote for any person not already elected President named Bush, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, or Trump. Enough with the dynasties already. Enough.

Washington Examiner:

A Department of Justice official who notified Congress Monday that the agency would “dedicate all necessary resources” to the reopened Hillary Clinton email investigation has a close relationship with campaign chair John Podesta, hacked emails show.

Peter Kadzik, assistant attorney general, sent his son to seek a job on the Clinton campaign given his personal relationship with Podesta. He was invited to a small birthday gathering for Podesta’s lobbyist brother last year. Kadzik also dined with Podesta at his home in January, when the first FBI probe was well underway.

. . . .

In 2008, Podesta raved about Kadzik to Cassandra Butts, a member of President Obama’s transition team, and noted Kadzik was “willing to help” with vetting for Obama’s Cabinet.

“Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail,” Podesta wrote of Kadzik.

While I am on the topic, I should note that I have been pretty tough lately on Andrew McCabe, a top FBI supervisor who has been overseeing the email investigation despite Hillary having help raise over half a million dollars for his wife’s political campaign. It’s probably worth noting in this regard that the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that McCabe was one of the people pushing for an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. At the same time, he appears to have been notified of the existence of the Weiner emails in early October, and there is some dispute about whether he acted to delay that or not.

We are constantly told by the Trumpers that Hillary’s abuse of the Clinton Foundation is worse than Trump’s self-dealing with the Trump Foundation, because Hillary Clinton used her charity for political purposes, exchanging political influence for donations.

Guess what? It appears Mr. The Donald has done exactly the same thing in reverse: using his charity to buy political influence for a presidential campaign. The piece opens by describing how Trump, exploring a 2012 presidential run, was courting a “particularly vocal and influential critic” named Oran Smith:

During their meeting in Trump’s office, they discussed Christian faith and religious liberty. Smith was struck by “a different Donald Trump than I expected.” On his way out the door, Smith asked that Trump consider donating to the Palmetto Family Council.

“He was never heavy-handed about any quid pro quo,” Smith said.

But Trump delivered.

“It was a quiet donation that came with a simple cover letter,” Smith said. It read: “Great meeting with you and your wife in my office,” dated May 6, 2011. Enclosed was a check for $10,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

That check is one of at least several donations to suggest Trump used his private foundation, funded by outside donors, to launch and fuel his political ambitions. Such contributions, if they were made solely for Trump’s benefit, could violate federal self-dealing laws for private foundations.

Thanks to the intrepid work of David Farenthold at the Washington Post, we already know that Trump used his charity as a piggy bank to pay off debts incurred by his businesses. But now we know that he also raided the Trump Foundation to get coveted speaking slots that would raise his profile as a possible presidential contender:

From 2011 through 2014, Trump harnessed his eponymous foundation to send at least $286,000 to influential conservative or policy groups, a RealClearPolitics review of the foundation’s tax filings found. In many cases, this flow of money corresponded to prime speaking slots or endorsements that aided Trump as he sought to recast himself as a plausible Republican candidate for president.

Although sources familiar with the thinking behind the donations cautioned that Trump did not explicitly ask for favors in return for the money, they said the contributions were part of a deliberate effort by Trump to ingratiate himself with influential conservatives and brighten his political prospects.

Trumpers who claim to be concerned by Hillary Clinton’s political use of the Clinton Foundation can’t disregard this. Either using a charity for your political advancement is wrong, or it isn’t. (Hint: it is.)

Again and again I see the argument from Trumpers: has Trump abused his political power like Clinton has? And the correct answer is no . . . not yet. Because he hasn’t had the chance.

But everything about him shows that, if you give him that power, he will abuse it.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]