He may well be targeting Bush – but not, as his defenders will claim, because he’s non-partisan and even-handed.
It’s because he wants a true reactionary, and thinks Bush isn’t right-wing enough. The guy has close ties to Ted Cruz. That’s the kind of nominee he wants.
How ironic that he is a staunch conservative yet all the books he has written is about his own party.
Funny how he demonstrates his non-partisan nature by publishing attack books on the two biggest competitors to the Koch’s annointed boy.
Screw the NYT, do you really think if there were any “proof” that every GOP AG/Prosecutor/elected official wouldn’t already be in line with litigation?
Brendan, how seriously do you expect us to take your claim that it will be difficult to paint this fool as partisan since, you tell us, he’s going to attack Jeb? Since when is the idea that a bought and paid for Koch minion is going to attack Jeb anythinh other than further proof that he’s a bought and paid for Koch partisan?
This is sleaze worthy of Fox.
I went to a Chipotle today for lunch, not the one HRC was in, but I was giddy to think she and I looked at the same menu posted on the wall. However, I saw no evidence of the Chipotlegate the right is talking about.
Funny how everyone is burying the lede in these “Clinton scandal” articles; first the Times, when they finally sorta admit there’s no fire inside of all the smoke, and now TPM waits until the end of this piece before identifying who’s behind the blowing of all this smoke.
The book “Clinton Cash” wants us to “follow the money”. Well, that’s all you need to do to figure out what this steaming pile is all about. Pure comedy that the rest of the Serious People would fall for this, but tragic that the Old Gray Lady did.
Two paws up!
His Institute Is Funded By The Kochs And Company
Bzzzzzzzzzt.
You’re done, son.
And the NYT signed onto this? He’s also going after Jebbie?
Not to make squint eyes look better. No, sir.
Gah.
The “five points” could have been one, and saved us some time:
Koch
During the 2014 elections, when newspaper editorial boards and publishers were falling over themselves to endorse far right Republicans, it became clear that virtually all wings of capital wanted to (at least) “counterbalance” the Democrats both immediately and in preparation for a probable 2016 Cliniton victory. This current move by the NYT suggests that big business is feeling its oats and wants either to dispose of Clinton and the Democrats altogether for 2016 or do some serious “bargaining” with her, probably re the “radical” politics of Elizabeth Warren and her direct and indirect influence on a possible Clinton Administration.
“Minnie Mouse is often a man.” The horror of it all. No wonder kids are running off to join ISIL.
Jeebus littlegirl, you got it bad.
My bodyman quickly calmed me down.
Two comments for the author:
1…Prove your accusations
2…Explain how your accusations differ from the lobbyists who shell out the big bucks for favors.
Jack Welch also said he prefers Cruz…never liked that man!
Except that the NYT claims to have fact checked his sources. Yes, I know they also fact checked everything Judy Miller wrote in the run-up to the Iraq war as well. But the Clintons are a sleazy pair, not vaguely progressive.
I’ll only be voting for Hillary because she’s not whichever idiot the Rethugs end up with. I won’t be voting for her because she’s worthy of the office.
And the result of their “fact checking” is the admission, buried deep in their article, that all they’ve got is innuendo and “it happened after so it must have happened because of.” Even Bill O’Reilly was forced to admit there’s no proof, just accusations and assumptions.
Perhaps a scintilla of the attention focused on this story (alleged favors in exchange for… donations to a charity?) could be given to the Kochs’ open efforts to buy the presidency for their chosen puppet?
Point #5 should have led the list, and pretty much disqualifies this hit job as an honest appraisal of facts. Please proceed, Mr. Schweizer.