Ah, but when the Clintons do it it is different

Three experts on the FCPA, the law passed by Congress in 1977 in response to news stories that Lockheed had been engaged in a systematic program of bribing foreign officials in return for foreign government contracts, (Steptoe and Johnson attorney Michael Edney – writing in the Wall Street Journal, CFPA expert attorney Roger Cassin, and Koehler) all seem to be in agreement that had these very same transactions taken place in a foreign country–an American company donating to a foundation established by the country’s former president who was married to that country’s current Foreign Minister, who in turn authorized the purchase of arms from that country — it would have been a violation of the FCPA.

Yes, of course it’s all corrupt.

And that they won’t get called on it is evidence of corruption.

Yes, agreed, the source is Breitbart but still, it stinks.

9 comments on “Ah, but when the Clintons do it it is different

  1. Matt Bai recently wrote an article on Hilary Clinton claiming that the super-rich like Hills, make better Presidents that struggling Upper Middle Class people like Ted Cruz.

    Oddly enough this is not what he had to say about Mitt Romney. Not by a long shot.

    The Clintons function in life seems to be to corrupt the Left. There is nothing too low for them to stoop to as long as it justifies whatever passing political need Bill or Hilary Clinton have this very second. So Bill Clinton got the NOW to endorse the sexual exploitation of interns and dismiss what were credible reports of rape. The media seems only too happy to do what Monica did and get down in their knees to lick his ar$ehole.

  2. It is clever politics. Make almost everything in politics illegal in some obscure way, and then ensure your friends and fellow travellers in the Justice Department only ever go after the other side.

  3. Watching Jerry McGuire can be fascinating. “No this isn’t a Clarence Thomas moment” he promises. That same Hollywood that jumped up and down in outrage at this behaviour then went decided it was fine for Billybob; it was all Monica’s and Paula’s fault.

  4. I’ve always been amused that “Slick Willie” is a better joke in Britain than in the US.

  5. Yes, agreed, the source is Breitbart but still, it stinks
    And the problem with Breitbart is?

  6. Ironman – “Watching Jerry McGuire can be fascinating. “No this isn’t a Clarence Thomas moment” he promises. That same Hollywood that jumped up and down in outrage at this behaviour then went decided it was fine for Billybob; it was all Monica’s and Paula’s fault.”

    As if anyone cared about Teddy Kennedy doing far worse – his waitress sandwich is well documented. Certainly not Hollywood. But then he voted the right way. As Instapundit says, if they didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

    But Jerry McGuire is a horrible film and no one in their right mind ought to watch it. For a whole lot of reasons. Not the least of which is their attempt to counter a natural and sensible distrust of single mothers. By all means, praise men who marry widows. But a woman who has failed to honour her vows the first time around, or is so stupid and feckless to get knocked up by some bad boy who does not stick around is not likely to be a good choice.

    By all means, let’s ask Cuba Godding Jnr how viewing single mothers as “sacred” has worked out for the Black community. Hollywood is made up of vile people who hate normal people and White heterosexual society.

  7. Breitbart? There’s a certain political bias to it. It says it is politically biased, it is and that’s fine, even welcome. But I wouldn’t trust the Guardian to tell me whether Cameron likes his babies fried or boiled, (even less Farage) and I’m going to be a tad careful about the manner in which Breitbart tells me the Clintons are corrupt.

    Nowt wrong with bias as long as you know about it.

  8. @ Tim,
    Any sensible and intelligent (the two are not synonymous) person can adjust for a declared political bias so we expect the reports published to be subconsciously selected (even when the person is trying to be objective). So, as long as you explain that Breitbart is biased to those who didn’t already know, that is OK.
    You’ve told me that you supported UKIP and I’m fairly sure I’ve told you that I have supported SuperMac since before some hack invented the name – so we know who we are talking (emailing) to: as an undergraduate the only guy with whom I could have a serious political discussion was the Hon secretary of the Communist Club.The problem is with those who lie about their bias, like the BBC or “The Independent” or the New York Times.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.