Quelle mouche a donc piqu\u00e9 Associated Press (AP), la grande agence d’information am\u00e9ricaniste ? AP est un r\u00e9seau tout ce qu’il y a de Syst\u00e8me, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral bien dans la ligne, malgr\u00e9 l’un ou l’autre loustic (les questions de Matt Lee<\/a> au\/\u00e0 la porte-parole du d\u00e9partement d’État en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral). Mais parfois, cela arrive, le stylo vous \u00e9chappe un peu des doigts, on croit bien faire, on retrouve un instant le goût de l’enqu\u00eate, des questions pressantes pos\u00e9es \u00e0 une source et on se dit que ce serait dommage de ne pas exploiter \u00e7a… Et patatras, cela donne ce gros truc du 24 août<\/a> sur les gens (non-officiels) qui sont venus rendre visite ou ont t\u00e9l\u00e9phon\u00e9 \u00e0 la secr\u00e9taire d’État Hillary Clinton durant son pontificat (2009-2013) \u00e0 la t\u00eate de la politique ext\u00e9rieure des USA, et visite ou coup de fil dans le sanctuaire, dans le bureau m\u00eame de \u00ab\u00a0Madam Secretary<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb ; avec une comptabilit\u00e9 d’\u00e9picier, pas d’autres mots fulminent certains partisans d’Hillary :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « Au moins 85 des 154 personnes repr\u00e9sentant des int\u00e9r\u00eats priv\u00e9s qui ont rencontr\u00e9 Hillary Clinton ou ont eu des conversations t\u00e9l\u00e9phoniques avec elle alors qu’elle dirigeait le d\u00e9partement d’État se sont r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9es \u00eatre des donateurs pour sa fondation familiale ou ses programmes internationaux, ou se sont eng\u00e9es \u00e0 l’\u00eatre, selon l’agenda du d\u00e9partement d’État que Associated Press a pu consulter. Lorsqu’ils sont additionn\u00e9s, ces 85 donateurs ont contribu\u00e9 jusqu’\u00e0 hauteur de $156 millions. Au moins 40 ont donn\u00e9 plus de $100.000 chacun et 20 ont donn\u00e9 plus d’un $million<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n L’enqu\u00eate d’AP, qui n’est ni h\u00e9ro\u00efque ni professionnellement exceptionnelle, a provoqu\u00e9 une terrible temp\u00eate qui, c’est l\u00e0 son immense vertu, d\u00e9chire le camp des partisans de la candidate<\/strong>. D’une part, il y a ceux qui sont scandalis\u00e9s par cette d\u00e9marche qu’ils jugent intrusive et irrespectueuse, qui ne jugent pas qu’il y ait n\u00e9cessairement conflit d’int\u00e9r\u00eat (entre l’influence de la fonction de secr\u00e9taire d’État et les int\u00e9r\u00eats que repr\u00e9sentent les visiteurs-donateurs) et donc corruption, selon l’argument il y avait nombre de personnalit\u00e9s de grande valeur chez ces visiteurs-donateurs, et qu’on peut aussi bien penser que \u00ab\u00a0Madam Secretary<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb les recevait pour le bien de l’État ; ainsi vont les arguments de Matthew Yglesias, dans Vox.com<\/em><\/a>, ou de la charmante (pour le nom, certes) Nancy LeTourneau<\/a>, dans WashingtonMonthly.com<\/em>. De l’autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, il y a ceux qui, manifestement, commencent \u00e0 avoir assez des frasques diverses de la Clinton et s’exclament d’exasp\u00e9ration et de fureur, allant jusqu’\u00e0 r\u00e9clamer la fermeture s\u00e9ance tenant de la Clinton Foundation<\/em> (« Just Shut Id Down<\/em> », proclame Huffington Post<\/em>, l’un des sites les plus clintoniens des r\u00e9seaux, rayon servilit\u00e9-Syst\u00e8me)… Hillary, elle, nous la fait avec une humeur de dogue, dans le genre \u00ab\u00a0Much Ado for Nothing<\/em>, bande de ploucs\u00a0\u00bb, en reconnaissant qu’il y a \u00ab\u00a0vraiment beaucoup de fum\u00e9e\u00a0\u00bb, mais qu'\u00a0\u00bbil n’y a pas de feu<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb pour autant. Elle inverse ainsi avec sa gr\u00e2ce de bulldozer profil\u00e9 le fameux dicton d'\u00a0\u00bbil n’y a pas de fum\u00e9e sans feu\u00a0\u00bb : \u00ab\u00a0There’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, ajoutant par cons\u00e9quent \u00ab\u00a0Circulez, il n’y a rien \u00e0 voir\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Les adversaires de Clinton en rajoutent, bien entendu, mais sans trop d’emportement, sans trop pousser tant les \u00e9v\u00e9nements se chargent de l’essentiel \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, et m\u00eame les d\u00e9passent avec leur rythme. Tout juste mentionnera-t-on l’intervention de Rudolph Giuliani, l’ancien maire de New York, qui s’est institu\u00e9 grand procureur et accusateur de Clinton, et ainsi l’un des plus redoutables lieutenants de Trump. Giuliani juge, peut-\u00eatre avec un peu d’emphase mais pas que, – eh bien, que le scandale de la Clinton Foundation<\/em> passe tout ce que la Grande r\u00e9publique a connu, – et pourtant, elle en a connu, comme Jefferson le faisait remarquer \u00e0 Washington d\u00e8s mai 1791, dans une lettre rest\u00e9e fameuse où il d\u00e9non\u00e7ait la corruption du Congr\u00e8s. (Les derniers mots du pauvre Jefferson, sur son lit de mort en 1825, furent « Tout, tout est fini<\/em> », et il ne parlait pas de lui mais d’un Grand R\u00eave Am\u00e9ricain de vertu politique \u00e0-la-romaine qu’avaient fait les P\u00e8res Fondateurs, et qui s’\u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 bris\u00e9 et dissip\u00e9 comme une illusion sans lendemain.) Giuliani estime que cette affaire d\u00e9passe largement le Watergate en gravit\u00e9, et m\u00eame le scandale du Teapot Dome<\/em><\/a><\/strong>, qui ouvrit les Roaring Twenties<\/em> sous l’administration Harding. Il reste \u00e0 voir ce que va en faire Clinton, car si elle obtemp\u00e9rait aux objurgations de ses partisans les plus critiques, elle se trouverait devant deux implications terribles <\/strong>: la premi\u00e8re serait de reconnaître implicitement qu’il y a un air de corruption dans cette fondation ; la seconde se r\u00e9sume \u00e0 une question, compte tenu de l’aveu implicite qu’on vient de voir : pourquoi fermer la Clinton Foundation<\/em> aujourd’hui, alors qu’elle va \u00eatre pr\u00e9sident (puisque c’est \u00e9crit) et ne pas l’avoir ferm\u00e9e en 2009, lorsqu’elle devint secr\u00e9taire d’État, qui est une fonction publique d’une si haute importante ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Disons-le aussit\u00f4t \u00e0 ce point, \u00e9galement avec notre gr\u00e2ce coutumi\u00e8re, qu’il nous importe royalement peu de savoir lesquels des arguments sont recevables et lesquels le sont moins, par rapport au reportage d’AP et aux diverses r\u00e9actions recueillies, et disons dans l’\u00e9valuation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du scandale. Nous avons encore du temps et et il y aura des occasions pour y revenir lorsque cela s’av\u00e8rera essentiel. Nous dirons simplement, pour prendre date en toute innocence pour notre compte, que depuis que les Clinton roulent leur bosse, et lorsqu’on rel\u00e8ve les diverses traces qu’ils ont laiss\u00e9es derri\u00e8re eux, il est assez loyal et fair-play<\/em>, et singuli\u00e8rement conforme \u00e0 la justice m\u00eame, de les consid\u00e9rer absolument comme coupables avant qu’ils n’aient prouv\u00e9 point par point leur innocence. (Apr\u00e8s tout, c’est faire preuve d’une grande magnanimit\u00e9 que de leur donner la possibilit\u00e9 de prouver, s’ils le peuvent et apr\u00e8s avoir v\u00e9rifi\u00e9 s’ils entendent bien le sens du mot \u00ab\u00a0innocent\u00a0\u00bb, leur innocence justement.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ce qui nous importe \u00e0 ce point du propos, pour cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement, avant d’en venir \u00e0 deux textes qui le documenteront, c’est le constat du rythme formidable et \u00e9chevel\u00e9 de cette campagne USA-2016, avec la succession de renversements des situations, les deux candidats connaissant successivement des avatars, puis des remont\u00e9s, etc.<\/strong>, et par ailleurs, malgr\u00e9 la bonne volont\u00e9 g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de toute la machinerie-Syst\u00e8me, aucun des deux, et surtout pas Clinton-qui-a-d\u00e9j\u00e0-gagn\u00e9 bien entendu, ne parvenant \u00e0 creuser l’\u00e9cart qui importe et qui est de l’ordre de la conviction intime<\/strong>. A cet \u00e9gard, tout est possible, et m\u00eame de plus en plus possible… Il y a l\u00e0 une machinerie sublime sinon divine \u00e0 l’œuvre<\/strong>, qui arrange les conditions de l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 ce qu’\u00e0 aucun moment rien ne soit tout \u00e0 fait assur\u00e9, et ainsi qui fait en sorte que la superbe architecture courante du Syst\u00e8me, dans le chef du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme qui semblait pouvoir tenir \u00e9ternellement de par sa pourriture intrins\u00e8que m\u00eame, subisse au contraire et sans arr\u00eat des coups de boutoir impressionnants. Pendant ce temps, l’exacerbation des psychologies (\u00ab\u00a0\u00e7a y est, c’est pli\u00e9 !\u00a0\u00bb – \u00ab\u00a0Non, il y a encore \u00e7a, et puis \u00e7a !\u00a0\u00bb) ne connaît aucun r\u00e9pit, les nerfs s’usent, la vigilance se rel\u00e2che dans le d\u00e9sordre parfois fratricide des jugements, et des perspectives nouvelles et inattendues s’ouvrent \u00e0 nous, \u00e0 vous, \u00e0 eux. Le grand machiniste de l’univers s’en paye une tranche<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On n’\u00e9chappe pas non plus \u00e0 la sensation de l’exceptionnalit\u00e9 des personnages que sont les deux concurrents, au milieu d’une situation de tous les extr\u00eames, autant pour la puissance des courants populaires en cause, que pour le caract\u00e8re insens\u00e9 des agissements du Syst\u00e8me et de ses relais pour maîtriser une situation qui leur \u00e9chappe compl\u00e8tement. Sans le moindre doute, Clinton, puisqu’il s’agit d’elle dans ce cas, est une personnalit\u00e9 d’exception, une Reine de la Corruption aussi ricanante et persiflante que dure comme de l’acier et impitoyable comme le destin, une Lady McBeth Sans Peur et Sans Vergogne qui fait mesurer jusqu’\u00e0 quel niveau de diablerie le Syst\u00e8me et sa cr\u00e9ature favorite qu’est l’Am\u00e9rique conduisent les sapiens<\/em><\/strong>. Notre chance et sa faiblesse sont que tout cela est couronn\u00e9 chez elle d’une arrogance et d’une assurance sans limite, qui font \u00e9voluer la Reine de la Corruption (bien plus que la Reine Corrompue) dans un univers \u00e0 elle<\/strong>, et les autres dans leur univers \u00e0 eux où elle est bien parfois oblig\u00e9e de mettre un pied, pour voir si l’eau est brûlante puisqu’il s’agit d’une \u00e9lection et qu’elle n’est pas seule en course ; elle nous l’a d\u00e9crite<\/a> involontairement, cette image d'\u00a0\u00bbun autre univers\u00a0\u00bb, des \u00ab\u00a0univers parall\u00e8les\u00a0\u00bb, etc., en voulant moquer ceux qui osent conjecturer qu’elle n’est pas au meilleur de sa grande sant\u00e9 : « I do feel sometimes like this campaign has entered into an alternative universe. I have to step into the alternative reality, answer questions about am I alive, how much longer will I be alive<\/em>. » … Tout cela vaut aussi bien pour nous (nous nous sentons comme s’il s’agissait d’un autre univers) lorsque nous observons son comportement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Pour illustrer cet \u00e9pisode, nous avons choisi deux textes qui viennent de sources anti-Clinton, et en plus de fort mauvaise r\u00e9putation, de celles que le Syst\u00e8me voudrait bien faire tomber<\/a> sous le coup d’une vertu qui aurait l’allure d’une guillotine<\/strong>. En l’occurrence, ce parti-pris n’est pas g\u00eanant dans la mesure où la pol\u00e9mique se trouve surtout \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur du camp Clinton, ou dit diff\u00e9remment, \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur du Syst\u00e8me. On peut consid\u00e9rer qu’AP fait partie de la presse-Syst\u00e8me, et la pol\u00e9mique ne concerne pas le fait m\u00eame des activit\u00e9s de secr\u00e9taire d’État de Clinton, mais de ce qu’il faut faire de la description de ces activit\u00e9s. D’abord, nous publions un texte g\u00e9n\u00e9ral venu de NWD<\/em>, d\u00e9crivant l’\u00e9pisode, ce 24 août<\/a>, et ensuite un texte de Breitbart.News<\/em>, du m\u00eame 24 août<\/a>, qui pr\u00e9sente une liste de personnalit\u00e9s ou de m\u00e9dias progressistes, pro-Clinton, condamnant les activit\u00e9s de la Clinton Foundation<\/em> et demandent que des mesures soient prises. (On peut \u00e9galement consulter un article de TheConan.com<\/em>, du 25 août<\/a>, qui s’attache \u00e0 identifier les donateurs venus du monde de la presse-Syst\u00e8me.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A commentator on Wednesday suggested that the real solution to the \u00ab\u00a0pay for play\u00a0\u00bb scandal involving Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation would have been to shut down the non-profit in 2009, when she became secretary of state.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Too late.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Now, with Clinton campaign staff on the defensive, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is forecasting it will end up being one of the biggest political scandals in America.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ever.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0I am more than willing to predict, when the history of our day is written, the scandal you are watching unfold is going to be like the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s and maybe bigger. It’s going to be bigger than Watergate,\u00a0\u00bb he said at a campaign rally for GOP nominee Donald Trump in Tampa, Florida.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Nixon had to leave office, and he did a lot of bad things, but it wasn’t raking in millions and millions of dollars through a phony charity,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00ab\u00a0I’m not sure how much money was involved in the Teapot Dome, but I bet it could not have been much more than the hundreds of millions of dollars the Clintons have been getting and turning the State Department into a pay-for-play operation.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Daily Caller reported<\/a> Giuliani was \u00ab\u00a0outraged\u00a0\u00bb at the \u00ab\u00a0numerous, numerous serious federal felonies\u00a0\u00bb Clinton committed.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n It was John Cassidy in the New Yorker<\/a> who suggested the closure should have happened eight years ago.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0It’s getting hard to keep track of all the developments in the story of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton emails,\u00a0\u00bb he wrote.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But he cited an opinion from the Boston Globe regarding the controversy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Even if they’ve done nothing illegal, the foundation will always look too much like a conflict of interest for comfort,\u00a0\u00bb the paper said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And the progressive Huffington Post ran a headline on its homepage that blared \u00ab\u00a0JUST SHUT IT DOWN.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0At this stage, many Democrats (including, I’d guess, some members of the Clinton campaign) just want the Clinton Foundation to go away. But that won’t happen. … A strong argument can be made that the Clinton Foundation should have been closed, or at least thoroughly overhauled, before Clinton became secretary of state, at the start of 2009. But to shut down the foundation now, when it is under severe attack, would only give credence to Trump’s claims that it was never more than a corrupt scheme to enrich its founders and their cronies,\u00a0\u00bb he wrote.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In a commentary at Fox News, Newt Gingrich, <\/a>who was speaker of the U.S. House from 1995 to 1999, suggested correcting that error now.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n He pointed out that’s not just his opinion, but also that of former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who also was the Democratic National Committee chief.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0I definitely think if she wins the presidency they have to disband it,\u00a0\u00bb Rendell said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Gingrich said the same sentiment is coming from the San Diego Union-Tribune, which said, \u00ab\u00a0These special interests are not giving money because the foundation is such an effective charitable organization; a 2013 New York Times investigation made it seem chaotic. They are not paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear shopworn speeches because they expect to obtain profound insights. They want the Clintons’ help, and they’re willing to pay for it.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Gingrich cited the \u00ab\u00a0appearance of corruption, the obvious and inevitable conflicts of interests, and the unseemly arrangements\u00a0\u00bb that have surrounded the foundation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0The Clintons didn’t care. They repeatedly violated their ethics agreement with the Obama administration to disclose and seek approval for foreign donors and speech clients,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00ab\u00a0Now they are making similar promise to the American people in order to ease Hillary’s path to the presidency. But just as the Obama administration was foolish to take them at their word, so would be the American people today.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The \u00ab\u00a0only acceptable action,\u00a0\u00bb he concluded, is for the foundation to be shut down \u00ab\u00a0right now.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Clinton’s defenders were losing their cool.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On CNN, Paul Begala, a Democrat activist and senior adviser for Priorities USA Action, \u00ab\u00a0flipped out,\u00a0\u00bb according to the Free Beacon.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0This is the Associated Press report that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have now responded to that 85, Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, met with 85 major donors to the Clinton Foundation. They gave something like in total $156 million to the foundation. How is that not paying for access?\u00a0\u00bb host Alisyn Camerota asked Begala.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0How is it?\u00a0\u00bb Begala said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0They paid money and they got to meet with the secretary of state,\u00a0\u00bb Camerota said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0And who were they and what did they get? This really infuriates me,\u00a0\u00bb Begala said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Begala repeatedly talked over Camerota in the interview.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n He even made the claim that the Clinton Foundation \u00ab\u00a0keeps millions of people alive.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The London Daily Mail said<\/a> Clinton’s campaign \u00ab\u00a0went into spin mode Wednesday, calling the AP’s report an exercise in ‘cherry-picking.'\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Chief strategist Joel Benenson said the Associated Press report was ‘cherry-picking’ Clinton’s long-hidden schedules from her time as secretary of state,\u00a0\u00bb the report said. \u00ab\u00a0Campaign manager Robby Mook used the exact same word to describe the blockbuster article that dominated Tuesday afternoon’s news cycle.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Trump campaign policy director Stephen said in an email: \u00ab\u00a0Secretary Clinton, you claim the AP report is an incomplete accounting of your meetings. Why don’t you clear up any problems with the AP report by releasing all of your schedules from while you were in charge of the State Department?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Trump’s opinion?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0It is a total embarrassment if our secretary of state can be bought or bribed or sold.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The International Business Times<\/a> also presented some interesting points.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation ‘set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons.'\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The benefit was $812,000, but the Journal noted, \u00ab\u00a0Under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations aren’t supposed to act in anyone’s private interest but instead in the public interest.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And it reported in 2010, Clinton \u00ab\u00a0pushed Russia to approve a $3.7 billion purchase from Boeing.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Two months after the deal was solidified, reported the [Washington Post], Boeing announced a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0A 2015 analysis by Vox found that ‘at least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place.’ IBT reported that Bill Clinton was paid more than $2.5 million by firms that were lobbying Hillary Clinton’s department.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The report also has details on a coal deal involving Morocco, Algeria and Colombia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The result, the IBT said, was a \u00ab\u00a0new political firestorm.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n David Horsey at the Los Angeles Times<\/a> wrote of the foundation and its donors, \u00ab\u00a0No doubt good intentions were involved, but, at least for some donors, there was also an interest in getting access to a former president of the Untied States and a possible future president – and at least a secretary of state.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n He continued: \u00ab\u00a0In politics donations buy access. Senators and members of Congress spend an obscene share of their days in office begging for campaign contributions and then many more hours hosting those contributors in private meetings. A secretary of state should be above that. Even though Clinton, herself, did not solicit donations, her husband did and, especially when the money came from foreign powers, that raises concerns both about ethics and foreign policy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Appearances are important, even if intentions are pure.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n New reporting<\/a> on allegations that Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to sell access to major Clinton Foundation donors — charges first detailed in Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer’s New York Times <\/em>bestselling book Clinton Cash<\/em><\/a> — <\/em>have led to a flood of calls from left-wing and center-left media for the Clintons to shut down their multibillion-dollar charity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Below is a list of eleven of these establishment outlets and journalists urging the Clintons either to shutter the Foundation or pass off its assets to some other unaffiliated nonprofit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 1. The Huffington Post<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Huffington Post began the week with a front page banner that read \u00ab\u00a0Just Shut it Down<\/a>.\u00a0\u00bb The HuffPo headline linked to a New York Times <\/em>article<\/a> that shined the spotlight on several major Clinton Foundation donors who saw their multi-million dollar donations coincide with favorable federal actions while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 2. The Washington Post<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Washington Post <\/em>editorial board wrote<\/a> Wednesday that \u00ab\u00a0should Ms. Clinton win, all of that work and all of the foundation’s assets should be spun off to an organization with no ties to the first family.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 3. USA Today<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The USA Today <\/em>editorial board said<\/a> Wednesday that \u00ab\u00a0the only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the foundation is to wind it down and put it in mothballs, starting today, and transfer its important charitable work to another large American charity such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 4. The New Yorker<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Writing in The New Yorker,<\/em><\/a> John Cassidy argues: \u00ab\u00a0Rather than torpedoing the foundation, it would surely make more sense, at least for the duration of a Clinton Presidency, to separate it from its founding family and turn it into an independent organization run and overseen by people unconnected to the Clintons. The reforms that Bill Clinton announced on Monday go some way in this direction, but not far enough.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 5. The Boston Globe<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Last week, the Boston Globe <\/em>editorial board asserted<\/a> that \u00ab\u00a0the Clintons should move now to end donations to the Foundation, and make plans to shut it down in November.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 6. Slate<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Over the weekend, Slate<\/em> senior writer Josh Voorhees wrote<\/a> that \u00ab\u00a0as long as Hillary Clinton is either running for the White House or running the country from inside it, she and her husband should temporarily shutter their foundation.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 7. The Daily Beast<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Daily Beast special correspondant Michael Tomasky wrote<\/a> Tuesday that \u00ab\u00a0The Clintons should shut the foundation down.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 8. Huffington Post Senior Politics Editor Sam Stein<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n In an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, <\/em>Stein said<\/a>, \u00ab\u00a0[T]hey definitely need to shut this thing down or transfer it to the — to some other foundation. … I mean, can you imagine, the people she’s going to have to meet with as president, assuming she wins, it’ just going overlap constantly. We’ll have stories like this nonstop. There’s too much ethical murkiness here.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 9. Huffington Post Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Grim took to Twitter on Monday and mocked the Clinton Foundation<\/a>, writing: \u00ab\u00a0If you shut down the Clinton Foundation. How would the world’s oligarchs achieve their main goal in life, eradicating disease and poverty??\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 10. Longtime Clinton ally and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
Clinton Foundation scandal ‘bigger than Watergate’<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Bob Unruh (NewWorldDaily)<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
11 Calls to Shut Down Clinton Foundation from Left-Wing Media<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n