from Cafe Hayek, A Canned Lie:
As ‘responsibility’ is commonly understood in modern English, a responsible person is able and willing to respond to the events in question by personally bearing the bulk of the consequences.
If Ms. Clinton were really to take responsibility, she’d submit herself to a genuinely probing legal investigation or even quit (or at least suspend) her political campaign. But, instead of her really taking responsibility, her strategic exclamation “I take responsibility” is meant only to make her immune from actually having to take responsibility.
Hillary Clinton, of course, is hardly the only public figure who emits whatever verbal effluvia she or he senses at the moment might distract the public from scrutinizing her or his actions too closely. Such “I take responsibility” faux-boasts are very common. But these boasts of responsibility-taking are meaningless at best and, in reality – unless the boaster actually takes a truly responsible action such as resigning from office – are actually more like lies. Sensible people ought not be soothed or duped by any claim by any public figure caught in some nefarious or reckless activity that he or she “takes responsibility.”
and from Jonah Goldberg at National Review, Who Cares if Hillary Apologized? :
This raises the question: Who gives a rat’s ass? Were you demanding an apology from Hillary Clinton? I wasn’t. I wanted the facts. And those are still in short supply. Which raises a second point: What the Hell is she talking about when she says the State Department “allowed” her private, off-site, server? First off, Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. Does she mean that she allowed herself to do it? If so, this may be the greatest example of Clintonian weasel-wording yet. If she doesn’t mean that, can we have the name of the official who told Clinton it was okay? Can we have the paperwork? Or is the Clinton team still drawing straws to see who gets to take one for the team?
Which brings us back around to this apology business. Note that she’s apologizing for the narrowest definition of her transgressions, which is a clever way of trying to minimize the scandal. It was perfectly allowed…but I should have used two email addresses. My bad. This is a strange way to “take responsibility,” after months of saying you did absolutely nothing wrong and attacking anyone who said otherwise. If she’s going to apologize for anything, she should apologize for that. Or she could apologize for putting national security at risk. Or she could apologize for violating rules rank-and-file people can get sent to jail for. This “apology” is a response to her falling poll numbers and nothing more. That’s because everything she does these days is in response to poll numbers
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423744/who-cares-if-hillary-apologized-jonah-goldberg
From The Wall Street Journal, How the Clintons Get Away With It by Peggy Noonan
I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?”
Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and unprecedented,” as high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been paid by nations or entities that had “matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk” when she was at State.
From 2001 through 2012 Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are lax.
The foundation’s website shows the Clintons holding sick children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan’s Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those who served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The Better Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards of accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.”
Bret Stephens writes in The Wall Street Journal, Hillary’s Cynical Song of Self
Cynicism is the great temptation of modern life. We become cynics because we desperately don’t want to be moralists, and because earnestness is boring, and because skepticism is a hard and elusive thing to master. American education, by and large, has become an education in cynicism: Our Founders were rank hypocrites. Our institutions are tools of elite coercion. Our economy perpetuates privilege. Our justice system is racist. Our foreign policy is rapacious. Cynicism gives us the comfort of knowing we won’t be fooled again because we never believed in anything in the first place. We may not be born disabused and disenchanted, but we get there very quickly.
This is the America that the Clintons seek to enlist in their latest presidential quest. I suspect many Democrats would jump at an opportunity not to participate in the exercise—it’s why they bolted for Barack Obama in 2008—and would welcome a credible primary challenger. (Run, Liz, Run!) But they will go along with it, mostly because liberals have demonized the Republican Party to the point that they have lost the capacity for self-disgust. Anything—anyone—to save America from a conservative judicial appointment.
from The New York Post, Isabel Vincent writes Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fund-raising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons are on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the Foundation.
Clearly donations are meant to achieve something other than improving the world. The Clintons have written a whole new chapter in ethical abuse for political and personal gain.
From Don Boudreaux in Cafe Hayek, Why Is This Politician Taken Seriously?
So here’s a simple mental experiment. Suppose you’re on the board of a successful corporation and the President & CEO of that corporation is about to retire. You, as a board member, must help select the outgoing president’s replacement. A seemingly sane candidate comes in one day for an interview and he announces that he was once in the midst of sniper fire. That candidate then explains the hectic efforts that he and his companions took to avoid being mowed down, giving you the impression that his life was then in serious jeopardy before his fortunate escape from the attack. You’re impressed by the man’s adventure! You soon learn, however, that the candidate’s tale is a lie. There’s not a shred of relevant truth to it. You call the candidate and inform him that you have it on solid authority that no gunfire incident ever happened to him. There’s a short pause. He then replies, confidently, “Oh, yeah. I misspoke. Sorry about that!”
Do you need any further information about this candidate to immediately and unconditionally strike him off of the list of possible successors to the outgoing president? Can this candidate possibly have any superior qualities that offset your certain knowledge that he is either a bald-faced liar or bat-poop nuts? Surely not.
Let’s face it: no sane person misremembers being in the line of sniper fire when, in fact, that person never was in such a predicament. That’s not the sort of non-event that a sane person comes to believe he or she actually endured. How many of you, Cafe patrons, have ever recalled being in the line of sniper fire only to remember later that such a recollection is completely mistaken?