Is it nothing or should she drop out?

They are throwing as much shit as possible to see what sticks. Benghazi isn't working out, so they are trying this, and this book is just more swift boating.

And the amounts involved. Iran, Saudi, Russia, China, Israel or other counties with poor human rights could be a deal breaker.

Depending on exactly what happened, there may also be violations of the ethics agreement worked out before HRC became Secretary of State.

They know that any tax errors will be ferreted out and blown up to gigantic disaster proportions so they should have audited themselves and corrected anything long before allowing Republicans to reveal them.

I would think that the Clintons would have insisted this was all checked out before Hillary started her campaign.

And if they were "mistakes" that they hoped to get away with, well, that's too stupid to imagine.

they should have checked this in January.

Still, I hope that most people will look at
it as a smear, but I doubt that the MSM will.

Funny they don't do that to the GOP, ever, isn't it?!?!

...amended reports.

I've been a campaign treasurer for eleven campaigns and I don't recall one where I didn't find an error and send an amended report, and our campaigns collected only about $20K each.

One year our opponent filed FIVE amended returns on the last day before the committee was terminated.

by a former President whose spouse is planning to run for President and which takes in millions and millions of dollar.

If they haven't released the amendments by Thursday, then the problems weren't that simple.

Spare me. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence.

And matches to your enemies.

dealing with a detail about a country that would raise questions. Can the Rs spin it so that the details look suspicious?

If the Rs can connect the dots in even the smallest way they will do it. And they will use it against her in the most damaging way regardless what the truth is.

It is a non-profit and doesn't pay income taxes anyway.

However, they are required to separate the grants and donations received into various categories. They failed to account the donors separately between individuals and governments.

This is neither Bill Clinton's and definitely not Hillary's fault -- surely they don't look into the accounting of billions of dollars. They have people to do that stuff.

It is another repuke smear campaign and NY Times seems to have a hair up their ass and are enabling it.

I can imagine the press, then the GOP'ers, calling for 100% disclosure of every dollar paid by every individual and every corporation or nation. And at this point, I don't see anything stopping that.

Whitewater was originally not about a blue dress, it was about a land deal. It's clear that the Clintons fancy themselves as some type of wheeler-dealers. I have a feeling that this is about to get somewhat uglier.

Now he is a private citizen and works for a demonstrably charitable organization.

No laws have been broken and the repukes cannot have access to anything. The foundation has nothing to do with Hillary.

Another point -- it was Janet Reno who betrayed her president. Janet Reno's permission was needed to expand white water into Monica Lewinsky and Janet Reno should have flat out refused.

When I mention "Whitewater", you're thinking of the Lewinsky affair. Yes, Whitewater morphed into that travesty, but way back when, it started as a land deal when Bill Clinton was Arkansas Attorney General, about the time that Hillary was playing around with cattle futures. It was investigated soon after Clinton became President, amid charges that political influence was used to get loans for the failed venture. As I said, wheeler-dealer stuff, not the way that working class people make their money.

How can you say that the foundation has nothing to do with Hillary? Hell, it's called "The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation" right in its title. Even if they called it "The Happy Fun Time Club" everybody who gave to it knew that Hillary would be completely aware of their donations.

You had better hope that she gets a serious primary challenger, and not some retread Republicon like Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee to run against her on this stuff, so that it can be labeled "old news" by the time she gets into debates with her Rethug challenger in the last couple of months before the general election.

Right now, polling shows 54 percent of voters don't find her trustworthy, with only 38 percent saying that she is trustworthy. And that's Quinnipiac, not some push poll from Frank Luntz. I can't see anything making the 54 percent figure come down, but I can see the 38 percent figure shrinking. That eight percent in the mushy middle is going to go somewhere, and as revelations come out, I don't see them going to the 'trustworthy' side.

So "trustworthiness" by itself is statistically useless.

The question is whether people trust Hillary more than Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or Rand Paul or any one of the other clowns.

I always find the measure of trustworthiness laughable.

Let's ask questions that go to the heart of people.

1. Would you trust Hillary to watch your kids for a few hours?
2. Would you trust Hillary to lend her $500 for a week?
3. Would you trust Hillary to buy a used car from her?
4. Would you trust Hillary to house-sit your house when you're on vacation?
5. Would you trust Hillary to let her borrow your car?

Those are the trusts people care about. Not some whipped up media innuendo-cloud whipped up by the repukes.

All of us will vote for Hillary, all who hate her and the values she nominally espouses will vote for whatever Rethuglican gets the nomination. But elections are not usually about hard and fast partisans, they go to whoever manages to motivate the folks who actually wait until the weekend before the election to decide who to vote for, the so-called swing voters, who I like to call the "mushy middle".

Now, these are folks who consciously avoid hearing, talking and especially thinking about politics, yet they miraculously think that they are obligated to vote. Anybody paying attention will know almost instinctively who supports their preconceived political notions, and will vote accordingly. In the end, it comes down to who scares the mushy middle the most who influences the votes that they feel they 'must' cast.

This last fall, it was Ebola, and the media played right into it. A few years ago, the Repukes tried Benghazi, and it fell flat. I mean, hell, who would go to Libya to work at an embassy, and put yourself at extreme risk? So, the mushy middle could not relate to the issue.

However, we have a number of things that Hillary can be said to have a hand in. She certainly greenlighted the Arab Spring, and right now, its bearing some pretty rotten fruit. There's the famous video of her gleefully pushing the 'reset' button with Russia, and the story is seeping out about how Putin is moving to get uranium to potentially use in nuclear missles aimed at us. Yes, a number of agencies signed off on that deal, but the GOP'ers will attempt to make the case, "Why didn't Hillary Clinton veto this deal? Did it have anything to do with the money her foundation was being paid?"

The Clintons are widely viewed as letting nothing stop or slow them down in their pursuit of power, fame, and influence. Their marriage is viewed widely as one of political convenience, and the question can easily be planted, "What would she (they) do if in the White House again? Who would they sell out this time?" Ask workers who feel that trade deals took their jobs that question, and see what their answer is.

Hillary doesn't want to borrow your $500, or sell you a car, or babysit your kids. She is asking to be in charge of the future of your entire country for the next four or eight years, something that few people are ever going to do. I expect the GOP to attempt to get people very, very worried about that prospect. Barack Obama was able to accomplish that feat seven years ago.

Tomorrow, if they found crabgrass in her lawn, repukes will blame her for not using weed preventer and Bernie's supporters would join them without thinking that she doesn't take care of her garden.

If nothing else, in gives the appearance that the Clintons don't always put competent people in key positions. This particular issue should have been one that the accountants were keenly aware of long before filing anything.

If it is one of the big firms, this is very bad PR for them. I suspect, though, it's not a big accounting firm.

b/c million$ were donated to the Clinton Found from foreign donors and corporations, and possibly million$ also to Bill for speaker's fees while Hilary was SOS. So even if all the books are perfect, which they're not, this is a HUGE problem.

Hilary is not the one to lead us against the 1%, of which she is a member. Eliz. Warren is the one.

The Canadian company had mines in the US, which our "arch-enemies," the Russians, now own, thanks to Hillary. I think that also makes the whole thing more dramatic.

Sorry but Clinton Found chose to take million$ from these foreign corporatists tied to the nuclear weapons and dirty energy industry. Now that Hil is running, this is a very big issue and not just for the MSM and RWnuts but for this Dem.

She is now the last Dem candidate I would vote for.

Furthermore, I really take issue with anyone becoming a member of the 1% by way of a foundation. If you're funding a good cause, you should not be funding yourself a lavish lifestyle.

tell the whole story.

This is at best a footnote.

The original filings are a good thing. And these new ones are even better.

that looks bad.

That is the question.

And that is one question her campaign will never address.

The bottom line remains that the book fails to produce a shred of evidence supporting
the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as Secretary of State for the purposes of
supporting the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation

Of course not. She destroyed it all when she wiped the disk.

Like I said "no evidence"

I'm sure they've done it by now. That would make you right. There would be "no evidence." Not unless the NSA has it, and they aren't gonna talk.

i mean taxes are simple right?

it was either ...
orders from the top,
or a mistake.

time for an investigation.
time for the ole song...taking the fifth