Monday, June 08, 2015

A very worthy charity...exactly once

I was reading this story about how the Clintons donated $100K to a New York Times charity in 2008 and the paper just happened to endorse her for President over fan-favorite Obama.  This was one of the larger donations by the Clinton slush fund so it's important to ask how often and to what extent the Clintons contributed to the "Neediest Cases" fund.

Dylan Byers provides the answer:
The Clinton Family Foundation has not given to the Times' Neediest Cases Fund since 2008.
And suddenly, I'm reminded by this line from "A Few Good Men"
"These are phone records from Gitmo for September the 6th, and these are 14 letters that Santiago wrote, in 9 months, requesting, in fact begging, for a transfer. Upon hearing the news that he was FINALLY getting his transfer, Santiago was so excited that do you know how many people he called? Zero. Nobody. Not one call to his parents saying he was coming home. Not one call to a friend saying "Can you pick me up at the airport?"."
That is, there are patterns of behavior you would expect under normal circumstances.  If the Clinton's really felt this was a worthwhile charity, they would have given consistently to this cause even if it was some token amount as Billary were pulling in a half-mil per half-hour speech.

But do you know how much the NYT's "Neediest" are going to get when the Clinton's aren't trying to buy an endorsement?  Zero.

Extra - If you were wondering if this was a bribe or a payoff, it looks like the Clintons tried to bribe first and then settled for a payoff.

More - From Patterico: the NY Times suspended their outrage for "campaign finance reform" to collect up some cash which maybe went to charitable causes - who knows for sure?

1 comment:

Pinch Slushburger said...

There is no cause for concern here. The reason The NY Times is always able to preach so eloquently about how money can corrupt politicians, is because they themselves are incorruptible.