Watergate's Bob Woodward: "Clinton Foundation Is Corrupt, It's A Scandal"
By Tyler Durden
It’s one factor for the right-wing press to accuse the Clinton basis of cronyism, corruption, and scandal (especially if the facts, and inner admissions by affiliated employees, make sure as much) – it has a tendency to be most often ignored by the broader, if left-leaning, media. But while the Watergate scandal’s Bob Woodward, affiliate editor at the liberal Washington Post, says very a lot the same, Hillary Clinton’s marketing campaign has no selection but to notice. This is exactly what came about today whilst journalist Bob Woodward informed a Fox information Sunday panel that the Clinton basis is “corrupt” and that Hillary Clinton has not spoke again for it.
Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the transcript of modern-day exchange:
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX information SUNDAY: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton basis and pay to play, which I requested Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she became into an assault on the Trump basis.
But, Bob, I need to go back to the dialog I was having with Robby Mook before. while — when you see what turns out to be transparent evidence that Clinton basis donors have been being handled in a different way than non-donors in phrases of access, when you see this new — new revelations about the $12 million deal among Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are citizens right to be afflicted by this?
BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I — yes, it is a — it’s corrupt. it is — it’s a scandal. And she did not resolution your query at all. And she turned to include the simply right work that the Clinton basis has done. And she has a case there. But the blending of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and movements by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it is corrupt. You know, I mean, you cannot just say it is unsavory. But there may be no formal research going on now, and there are outs that they have.
But the election is not going to be made up our minds on that. I imply Karl was making the aspect about this, I’m not going to have a glance at the end result of the election. I imply that’s — that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they are not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And — and to focal point on that, I think, is wrong. I suppose the factor is, what is going to be the aftermath of this campaign.
So it is corrupt, it’s a scandal, and… it will have no outcomes at all. It’s time to look up the recent definition of Banana republic again.
IdentityCloaker.com
Take back your privacy!
