State Graft

The Clinton Foundation and the appearance of corruption.

By James Taranto

(Note: We’re off tomorrow and Friday, to return Monday.)

Libertarian humor writer P.J. O’Rourke endorsed Hillary Clinton for president back in May, arguing that she is the lesser of evils—or, as he put it, “the second worst thing that can happen to this country.” He added: “But she’s way behind in second place. I mean, she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”

A few prominent Republicans and dozens of semiprominent ones have likewise endorsed Mrs. Clinton on the theory that Donald Trump is worse. (The Washington Examiner has a list.) It’s not a crazy thing to think. But O’Rourke is right, maybe it’s time to junk those “normal parameters,” which pretty much amount to no limit at all.

This Tuesday report from the Associated Press does not come as a surprise but should be shocking:

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money—either personally or through companies or groups—to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with [Mrs.] Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Why are we learning about this now, 3½ years after Mrs. Clinton left the State Department, 16 months after she officially became a candidate for president, and just 11 weeks before the election? Don’t blame the AP, which has been stonewalled by John Kerry’s State Department: “The AP sought [Mrs.] Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.”

Here’s the campaign’s defense:

[It] said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of [Mrs.] Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

“It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton’s basis for meeting with these individuals,” spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it “a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation.”

Read today's full column »