May 20^th

Cal Thomas has many not very nice things to say about George Stephanopoulos (GS) and his donation of 75 thousand dollars to the Clinton Foundation. GS was interviewing Peter Schweitzer the author of “Clinton Cash,” the book is a strident attack on the Clinton Foundation, without disclosing his own contribution. Presumably his contribution renders his interview biased. Really? GS has a very long association with the Clintons and I can’t imagine that this donation could have suddenly swung him from an unbiased interviewer to a biased interviewer. Still, his “failure to disclose” his contribution has heightened the criticism about him from the right.

Cal makes a considerable point of complaining about current news people and their dearth of news gathering experience, GS being a shining example. Cal reminds us of his own long apprenticeship and the current emphasis on the TV news person being a girl, being blonde, having great legs and flawlessly reading a teleprompter. Heavens, which cable news channel could he have in mind? It certainly isn’t PBS.

Mr. Schweitzer, an associate of the Breitbart School of Journalism, has published, with Harper Collins, a book purporting to record the grievous sins committed by the Clintons in pursuit of donations to The Clinton Foundation. Schweitzer claims in his book that Hillary Clinton could have vetoed a Russian uranium mine deal. Then he claims that maybe “veto” was the wrong word. Various examiners have found as many as 20 errors of fact in this attempt at a hatchet job.  Cal Thomas mentions none of these lies and distortions, which is curious given that Cal boasts about his old timey training as a news man. Could Cal be even more biased than he claims GS is?

Cal firmly believes that donations to the Clinton Foundation are designed purely to get favorable treatment should Hillary become President. One can make unlimited contributions to 501 c 4 organizations and these outfits while not supposed to promote a politician can never-the-less promote issues. Perhaps “No more shrubs around the White House” would be permissible. Unlimited Super Pac contributions are also OK and they can openly advocate for a candidate. The only drawback is that contributors are identified. So why would anyone contribute to the Clinton Foundation if these other, more direct, routes to curry Clinton favor are available?

But the big bugaboo is the foreign contributors; they have not been adequately reported and according to law that’s a no, no. They aren’t illegal; they just have to be reported. This failure to observe the letter of the law has brought out those ready to accuse the Hilary of favoring the governments responsible for these contributions. The evidence for these favors? It doesn’t exist but when did that stop a paranoid accusation by the right?

There is no evidence that even one thin dime of these contributions, from whatever source, have found their way into the Clinton’s pockets. That won’t stop the Breitbarts or the Schweizers from trying to imply Clinton’s serious wrongdoing.