http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...odward-clinton-foundation-corrupt-its-scandal
Watergate's Bob Woodward: "Clinton Foundation Is Corrupt, It's A Scandal"
It's one thing for the right-wing press to accuse the Clinton foundation of cronyism, corruption, and scandal (especially if the facts, and internal admissions by affiliated employees, confirm as much) - it tends to be generally ignored by the broader, if left-leaning, media. But when the Watergate scandal's Bob Woodward, associate editor at the liberal Washington Post, says very much the same, Hillary Clinton's campaign has no choice but to notice. This is precisely what happened today when journalist Bob Woodward told a Fox News Sunday panel that the Clinton Foundation is "corrupt" and that Hillary Clinton has not answered for it.
Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the transcript of today's exchange:
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play,which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.
But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When -- when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new -- new revelations about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?
x
BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I -- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.
But the election isn't going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I'm not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that's -- that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they're not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And -- and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what's going to be the aftermath of this campaign.
So it's corrupt, it's a scandal, and... it will have no consequences at all. It's time to look up the latest definition of Banana republic again.
Watergate's Bob Woodward: "Clinton Foundation Is Corrupt, It's A Scandal"
It's one thing for the right-wing press to accuse the Clinton foundation of cronyism, corruption, and scandal (especially if the facts, and internal admissions by affiliated employees, confirm as much) - it tends to be generally ignored by the broader, if left-leaning, media. But when the Watergate scandal's Bob Woodward, associate editor at the liberal Washington Post, says very much the same, Hillary Clinton's campaign has no choice but to notice. This is precisely what happened today when journalist Bob Woodward told a Fox News Sunday panel that the Clinton Foundation is "corrupt" and that Hillary Clinton has not answered for it.
Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the transcript of today's exchange:
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play,which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.
But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When -- when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new -- new revelations about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?
x
BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I -- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.
But the election isn't going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I'm not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that's -- that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they're not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And -- and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what's going to be the aftermath of this campaign.
So it's corrupt, it's a scandal, and... it will have no consequences at all. It's time to look up the latest definition of Banana republic again.
