AND HE'S RIGHT – AT 9:46 A.M. ET:  The author of the new "Clinton Cash," which rips bare the Clintons' financial dealings, is under sustained attack from Clintonians.  He is fighting back, and he's correct.   From The Hill: 

The author of a controversial book that has sought to cast doubt on Hillary Clinton’s impartiality at the State Department, on Tuesday pushed back against criticism that Clinton Cash doesn’t include a “smoking gun” that directly proves the book’s allegations.

Peter Schweizer compared Clinton’s conduct to that of politicians in two high-profile corruption investigations—former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who was convicted on corruption charges, and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who has been indicted on bribery charges.

“If you look at former governor of Virginia who was prosecuted, if you look at Sen. Menendez, there was no quid pro quo,” Schweizer said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.

“Yet, they were prosecuted because there were contribution or payments or gifts given to public officials with the perception or the belief that they were going to be given something in exchange,” he added.

Schweizer’s interview turned heated with pointed questions from “Morning Joe” hosts Mika Brzezinski and former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough (Fla.). Brzezinski accused Schweizer of timing the book around Clinton’s campaign kickoff, while Scarborough sided with Schweizer and said that there should be a further investigation into Clinton’s conduct.

Schweizer’s book argues that donations to the Clinton Foundation have influenced her conduct as secretary of State. He’s specifically targeted instances including the sale of mining interests to a Russian government agency and a change in policy on exporting nuclear technology to India.

But many Clinton allies have bashed the book as politically motivated and note that there’s never been direct evidence of any impropriety. Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told The New York Times that accusations regarding the mining sale were “utterly baseless,” and the pro-Clinton rapid response group Correct the Record has released a number of fact sheets pushing back on the book’s claims.

COMMENT:  When standards are high, which they never are with the Clintons, the appearance of impropriety is considered very significant.  Throughout their careers the Clintons have regularly given that appearance of impropriety.  It is unlikely that we can absolutely prove illegal conduct, as they've become expert at covering their tracks.  But huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation (one was $31.1-million)
from elements that later got favorable treatment by the State Department raise major questions of propriety and national security.  And then, of course, we have Hillary's private server and the thousands of e-mails from that server that have been conveniently destroyed.

Hillary's defenders are becoming desperate.  An observer has to ask why one major political couple has been so consistently linked to apparently shady dealings.  It has gone on for years.  In this case the devil is not in the details.  It's in the way the Clintons live their lives, and the manner in which they've parlayed "public service" into a vast fortune.

We applaud the author.

April 28, 2015