Shocking! The New York Times says Hillary Clinton Must Answer Pay-to-Play Charges!

Surprise, surprise! Could the New York Times and CNN actually be attempting to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for some of her failings? On Thursday morning’s episode of CNN’s New Day, host Poppy Harlow asked New York Times veteran reporter Maggie Haberman about a recent interview that Hillary Clinton gave to CNN’s Anderson Cooper. During the interview Clinton utterly failed to offer any explanation to her Foundation’s twisted ties to the State Department or for her decision to continue operating the Foundation in the same manner she always has… even as so many problems are being uncovered. Haberman explains that Clinton is in trouble and that the Foundation may yet be what brings down the Clinton campaign for the White House.

CNN: No one is questioning the good work of the foundation, that they’re just not. But when she says, OK, the rules will need to change if I’m president, but they didn’t need to change when I was secretary of state. And then when Anderson pressed her on that, she said basically, well, I went above and beyond in 2009.

Trending: Don’t Be Deceived By The Black American Bishop at the Royal Wedding

You know why she went above and beyond? Because never before there been a situation like that. And that’s not a direct answer to the question. I wonder if you think that’s enough for the voter.

Maggie Haberman: I don’t think it’s enough for the voter, and I don’t think it’s enough for what’s going to happen over the next eight weeks terms of the debate and in terms of whatever future interviews she faces. The fact she did this interview at all is the suggestion that what Trump is doing, however unrealistic, is getting call for a special prosecutor which she’s been doing for several days now, is getting through the people.

And I think Anderson asked the exact right question, which I if this is not going to be OK when you’re president, why was it okay before. And she doesn’t have a great answer…

There are no great answers to this. It is true that the foundation does good work, but it also — there’s an enormous amount of defensiveness on the part of the Clinton about this and has been for many, many years about what are legitimate questions. At the end of the day, yes, it is true. It is smoke, there is no evidence of a quid pro quo. But there is certainly clear evidence of the foundation and the State Department doing what they said they wouldn’t do, which is have a lot of interaction and a lot of back and forth.

And that is going to look strange. To your point, we’ve never had a set of circumstances like this before. Usually what people would do in that situation is try to use the utmost caution.

The Clintons repeatedly over many years, get into these kind of situations where there’s just enough for critics to hit them on. And the two aides who are the most involved in this, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, I assume Hillary Clinton will want to bring into the White House because they’ve been with her for a long time. That’s also where there’s going to be a headache going forward.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.