posted April 28, 2015 06:14 AM            

Uranium is a critical strategic resource and having a potential enemy of the United States control a strategic US resource is insane...at best.

The reason Hillary didn't intervene in the sale of the US strategic uranium resource to Russia was that Russians paid the corrupt Hillary's corrupt husband Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech. Further, 10s of millions of dollars was paid to the corrupt Clinton's corrupt foundation which is a direct quid pro quo....otherwise...a bribe to look the other way while Russia gained control of an American strategic resource.

Hillary had a duty to stop that rip-off. That was part of Hillary's job. It's just another example of the utter corruption of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

posted April 28, 2015 06:20 AM            

An insider with connections says that the Clintons’ Russian uranium deal was definitely hinky. Michael R. Caputo, writing in the PoliticsNY blog, says that he has in the past run public relations for Renaissance Capital, the Russian investment bank that paid Bill Clinton half a million bucks for a speech at the same time the State Department was tasked with approving or denying the acquisition of a substantial share of U.S. uranium production.

Even when I worked there, Renaissance Capital had close ties to the Kremlin - the relationship made Renaissance executives into oligarchs. By 2010, the firm had become a practical arm of Vladimir Putin. Nobody of sound mind would think otherwise.

Bill Clinton took that half million dollar payment as his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, served as a key member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This inter-agency panel must approve foreign purchase of private American companies the government deems vital to our national interest.

Shortly after Bill Clinton delivered the highest paid speech of his life, CFIUS was to consider and approve the key Russian purchase.

But even more interesting is Mr. Caputo’s perspective in the CFIUS process at the very time the uranium deal was under consideration:

In 2010-2011, I ran acquisition communications for Safran Group, the French government-controlled defense contractor which bought the US biometrics company L-1. It took us almost two years to gain CFIUS approval for France, an historic ally, to purchase a biometrics firm, not even remotely a strategic asset. We were stymied at every turn by an endless stream of questions.

In contrast, the Rusatom acquisition of UraniumOne got CFIUS approval in four months - for control of 20 percent of America's strategic uranium.

These two CFIUS approvals were happening at precisely the same time. Safran couldn't buy a break and was questioned at ever turn. Somehow, Kremlin-controlled Rusatom's purchase sailed through on a cool breeze.

Any insider will tell you that, considering the vital nature of the CFIUS-UraniumOne proceedings, it is certain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was directly involved. And Bill took $500,000 indirectly from the Kremlin at the same time.

posted April 28, 2015 01:51 PM            

All the Hillary and Bill apologists on planet earth won't make the stink on the Clintons go away.

But, it's sure instructive to note that even with all the corruption, which goes back decades from this corruption ridden duo, leftist fringe radicals still want Hill and Bill in the White House.

posted April 29, 2015 05:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
You can't begin to imagine how impressed I am that you used a far left loon site to knock World Net Daily.

Remember, I didn't bring up the Christian beliefs of Joseph Farah, you did.

But, since you did, let me educate you since you and the Wiki loons you quote here are ignorant of the facts.

Joseph Farah is dead center of American thought about religion. You and Wiki...along with the rest of the far left loon set are totally out of step with the majority of Americans on religion.

80%+ of Americans identify themselves as "Christians".

[b]Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian
July 18
By Gary Langer

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=90356&page=1

In the U.S., Christmas Not Just for Christians

While 81% identify themselves as Christians, 93% celebrate Christmas
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113566/US-Christmas-Not-Just-Christians.aspx

Is America a Christian Nation?
Huffington Post

Christianity is the religion of a substantial supermajority of the American population. According to the latest results of the Pew Research Centre's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, nearly 80 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-albert/is-america-a-christian-na_b_666038.html

However, we are making progress! Even you recognize the truth about the financial, political and institutional corruption of the Clintons.[/B]

---

LMAO, well then you probably cannot imagine how unimpressed I am that you keep deflecting and talking about religion instead of addressing the point WND has no credibility and lacks journalistic integrity

Identifying as Christian has nothing to do with the topic at hand, that is a major reach.

posted April 29, 2015 11:54 AM            

Here is Peter Schweizer, admitting he has no evidence for his smear job on H Clinton.
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/04/after-endless-media-attacks-on-hillary-the-fraud-admits-he-has-zero-evidence/

posted April 29, 2015 06:58 PM            

Paul Harvey is timeless.

Thanks for posting

----

------------------
Nothing is permanent in this wicked world; not even our troubles.

posted April 30, 2015 08:47 PM            

I guess we really need to dredge up dirt from 45 years ago...must be scary to think black people might vote for this one too, huh?

I just love it when you go on about how peoples' past associations are irrelevant. And how. Normal it is for people with Heart to be radical in youth and grow more conservative as they age.

posted May 01, 2015 08:27 AM            

You object to digging up dirt from 45 years ago?

posted May 01, 2015 12:41 PM            

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp#3d8fujRWkbDM6oLl.99

posted May 01, 2015 01:01 PM            

"I guess we really need to dredge up dirt from 45 years ago"

posted May 02, 2015 10:00 AM            

I once had a boss who gave me some great advice, not just for managing people but for judging politicians: You forgive mistakes; you punish patterns. Everybody screws up. But if someone won’t learn from his mistakes and try to correct his behavior, then he either doesn’t think it was a mistake, he just doesn’t care, or he thinks you’re a fool. The one indisputable takeaway from Peter Schweizer’s new book, Clinton Cash, is that Bill and Hillary Clinton fit one or all of those descriptions.

Let us recall Marc Rich, a shady billionaire indicted for tax evasion and defying trade sanctions with Iran during the U.S. hostage crisis. Rich fled to Switzerland to escape prosecution.

He hired Jack Quinn, a former Clinton White House counsel, to lobby the administration for a pardon. Quinn sought help from then–deputy attorney general Eric Holder, who advised Quinn to petition the White House directly — advice Holder later regretted. On the last day of his presidency, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich.

The ensuing scandal was enormous — and bipartisan. It was widely believed that Rich had bought his pardon. Denise Rich, his ex-wife, had made huge donations to the Democratic party, including $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and $450,000 to the foundation building Bill Clinton’s presidential library.

Liberals were infuriated. “You let me down,” wrote the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen. “It’s a pie in the face of anyone who ever defended you. You may look bad, Bill, but we look just plain stupid.”

“It was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified,” exclaimed then-Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.). “It was contemptuous.” Senator Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) chastised, “It was inexcusable.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd suggested Clinton had “traded a constitutional power for personal benefit.” Jimmy Carter all but called it bribery and said it was “disgraceful.”

You can understand the bitterness. Democrats had defended the Clintons through Whitewater, Travel-gate, and Hillary Clinton’s billing-records shenanigans. They even defended Bill Clinton when he raised millions in re-election donations from Chinese donors and rented out the Lincoln bedroom. But this was just too much. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us half a dozen times . . .

The Clintons said it was all a misunderstanding, which is what they always say. Quinn offered a familiar defense: “The process I followed was one of transparency.” Bill Clinton: “As far as I knew, Marc Rich and his wife were Republicans.” Hillary Clinton kept quiet.

Personally, I think Jimmy Carter was right, which is not something I say often.

But let’s assume it really was just a misunderstanding. Wouldn’t a normal person — never mind a family with historic ambitions — go to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of a repeat performance? When Senator John McCain was unfairly lumped in with the “Keating Five” influence-peddling scandal, he said the dishonor was more painful than his five years in a Vietnamese prison. He dedicated himself to demonstrating the sincerity of his shame, including his decades-long — though intellectually misguided — quest to reform campaign-finance laws.

There are no allegations of pardons for sale in Schweizer’s book. After all, Bill Clinton had none to sell anymore. But the Rich scandal was equally about the wealthy buying access and influence. And though there is no clear proof that Bill Clinton illegally sold access to shady gold-mining interests in Haiti or uranium moguls in Canada, no one this side of longtime Clinton defender Lanny Davis can dispute that the Clintons have acted as if they really just didn’t care how it all looked.

As New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait notes, the “best-case scenario” is that the Clintons have been “disorganized and greedy.”

The Clinton spin on the book is that there’s not a “shred of evidence” of criminal wrongdoing, or as ABC’s George Stephanopoulos helpfully repeated over the weekend, “There’s no smoking gun.” He’s right, but not being a criminal is a remarkably low bar for a politician, even a Clinton.

posted May 02, 2015 03:26 PM            

I keep telling you you will get her elected singlehandedly. Get some evidence and stop spreading dirt that doesnt stick. It hasnt stopped her in all these decades.

Hillary is a string puller. she is not a puppet dancing for campaign funds like your gang of religious- martyr-wannabees. Nor will you beat her by dredging up Bill's misdeeds. Lotta people have "unfaithful" spouses and a lotta people give Him the benefit of the doubt.

posted May 03, 2015 12:55 PM            

A Brief History of Hillary’s Hypocrisy
Stick around a while and it’ll become much longer.
Ross Kaminsky
5.1.15

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign mantra of “hope and change” was meaningless, thus leaving him free to act without fear of being accused of violating his principles, because he stated so few.

In comparison, at this early stage in her campaign, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a ball of contradictions and hypocrisy that Republican candidates will pick at for the next 18 months until one of them defeats her in the 2016 presidential election.

On a Monday evening in March in a “room full of political reporters,” Mrs. Clinton said: “I am all about new beginnings.… So here goes, no more secrecy, no more zone of privacy.” Just four days later, Clinton’s attorney informed Congress that she had deleted all emails on a private server that she used for both personal and official State Department communications while serving as secretary of state, having delivered to the State Department only those that she deemed sufficiently work-related to turn over.

In 2007, then-Senator Clinton excoriated the Bush administration for “secret White House e-mail accounts,” saying that they represented “a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok.” Mrs. Clinton’s own secrecy and obvious conflicts of interest show that she has added hypocrisy to her (and her husband’s) history of above-the-law self-dealing.

Two weeks ago, Hillary announced that “we need to get unaccountable money out of the political system.” Yet just a few days earlier, her team made the shocking pronouncement that Hillary’s campaign intends to raise $2.5 billion, more than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent combined in 2014.

Just how “accountable” is $2.5 billion of spending, and just what would those donors think they’re buying?

Here’s a clue:

We now know that the Clinton Foundation received and did not disclose — breaking an agreement Mrs. Clinton made with the Obama administration when she became secretary of state — multi-million dollar contributions from foreign governments and foreign business interests with matters coming before the State Department for approval.

As Peter Schweizer, author of a forthcoming book entitled Clinton Cash, has noted, when it came to getting lucrative government contracts to rebuild Haiti after its devastating 2010 earthquake, “if you wanted a contract, if you wanted to do business in Haiti, you had to have relationships with a Clinton.”

That is the kind of president and presidency Hillary’s donors know they’re buying.

Hillary fulminates over CEOs making “300 times more than the American worker.” Putting aside the fact that this number is overstated by including restricted, non-cash, and deferred compensation, and that it only looks at the biggest companies in America even though those CEOs represent fewer than two tenths of one percent of all CEOs in the country, the insincerity of this complaint coming from a woman who earns speaking fees of over $80 per second is transparent.

In 10 minutes of the most overpriced speeches in history, Hillary Clinton receives the median annual salary for an American worker. It’s hard to imagine a CEO who wouldn’t envy such earning power. I don’t object to Mrs. Clinton earning what the market will bear, but her assault on CEO pay while pretending to channel her inner Elizabeth Warren is pure hypocrisy.

Hillary trumpets women’s rights and gay rights while her foundation takes money from Muslim dictatorships where women are treated as chattel and homosexuality is punishable by death.

She traveled to Iowa in a van even though she hasn’t driven herself anywhere in two decades, where she pretended to care about opinions of “everyday Iowans” by attending scripted and staged “round tables” at which the people who spoke with her were hand-picked Democratic operatives.

It’s no wonder that a majority of voters now believe Hillary is not “honest and trustworthy.” Americans won’t vote for a self-dealing phony who perfects her craft by learning from a husband whose well deserved nickname is “Slick Willie.” (Hillary may be relying on millennial voters not having a recollection of the Lincoln Bedroom-selling, foreign donation-receiving, intern-diddling sleaze-fest that was the Clinton presidency. But she won’t inspire young voters — who are particularly intolerant of hypocrisy — the way Barack Obama did.)

Yes, the same poll shows that Mrs. Clinton is viewed as a strong leader. But being a strong leader didn’t save Richard Nixon — who actually was one — whereas voters won’t believe even that of Hillary after 18 months of Republicans exposing her record.

Far more important, Americans are already evenly divided on the question of whether Hillary “cares about the needs and problems of people like you.” During Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, 70 percent of voters, including a plurality of Republicans and a majority of men, answered yes to the same poll question about him. That number remained at 60 percent in 2012 whereas Mitt Romney earned only 46 percent, a single point lower than Hillary’s current position — and that was after a merciless liberal assault on Romney’s character. A Democrat who can’t do better than break-even on that particular trait is in a world of trouble.

Like turning a super-tanker, public opinion of a well-known figure is, in the absence of a cataclysmic event or revelation, slow to change. But with every few days bringing a new transparently insincere Hillary Clinton pronouncement as she explores previously unknown depths of hypocrisy, that is just what is happening to the likely Democratic presidential nominee. When it comes to election prospects for Hillary, the trend is not her friend.

posted May 06, 2015 10:26 AM            

Nothing wrong with making money! I approve of capitalism. But, I don't approve of using ones government office to enrich themselves, their families and a host of their political friends and cronies. I also don't approve of anyone using their political office to sell out the national security interests of the United States to a potential enemy...like Russia's Putin. But, that's exactly what Hill and Bill did. For selling out America, Hill and Bill received millions in personal cash...as well as about $150 MILLION for the foundation they OWN. This very same foundation which disburses about 10% of what they receive to the poor and needy the foundation claims it was organized TO HELP!
Any charity which doesn't spend at least 70% of their donated proceeds on the needy they say they're helping isn't a charity at all. It's a greedy, grasping scam.

May 6, 2015
The Hill-Billy Cash Pump
By Janet Tassel

Hillary Clinton: We knew her as a grim, charmless harridan; a pear-shaped harpy. Now, after reading Peter Schweizer's new book, Clinton Cash (HarperCollins, New York, May 2015), we see the ultimate Hillary, one of the world's truly scary women. Think Lady Macbeth, Messalina, Evita. Add Bill to the sordid picture and you have Bonnie and Clyde -- elected to high office, and lionized all over the world.

We know about Hillary's thousands of missing e-mails and unaccountable donors. What may be less known is how the Clinton double-scam works. Take, first of all, the so-called Clinton Foundation, whose stated purpose is "to strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence," whatever that means. Founded in 2001, when Bill had just left office, it boasts a staff of 350, mostly Clinton cronies and insiders.

Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million dollars through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the United States but from foreign investors, businesses and governments…hungry for access to the corridors of American power.

Meanwhile, Hillary, as a U.S. Senator, was "gaining influence and power." During her tenure, "two-thirds of Bill's enormous speaking fees [came] from foreign sources." After she became Secretary of State, Bill's income from speaking fees "ballooned." Tens of millions of dollars "flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers."

Look at this in perspective; the Senate, before confirming her as secretary of state, wanted assurances on the subject of foreign donors and of transparency, so "Hillary promised that 'the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year.'" On CNN, Bill added, "If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally…it's important to make it totally transparent." And finally, "the Clintons said they would seek preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions…from foreign governments of government-owned businesses."

Thus reassured, the Senate confirmed her. But the Clintons violated the commitment "almost immediately," failing "to disclose gifts amounting to millions of dollars from foreign entities and businessmen" in transactions "with serious national security implications."

Here is how it worked: Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by "close friends" or associates who happened to have business interests in these countries. Introductions were made, deals struck…. Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.

Such was the scenario when in 2005, "Bill Clinton found himself, of all places, in Almaty, Kazakhstan," ostensibly to help the country's AIDS patients -- a miniscule number, between 0.1 and 0.3,% of the population -- but in reality to procure a deal with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, under whose despotic rule Kazakhstan was mired in corruption and human rights abuses.

One of the densest thickets in this book full of foreign names and alphabet soups of abbreviations, this chapter is the hardest to condense. The essence of the malodorous deal starts with Bill flying to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra in Giustra's luxurious private jet. Giustra was looking to close a mining deal in Kazakhstan, and looking to Clinton for assistance. As he said, "All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can." The two established something called the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) as part of the Clinton Foundation, whose activities just happen to be sited near mines.

Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy, wanted access to Kazakh mining. The day after Clinton and Giustra were feted at a banquet given by Nazarbayev, the two left Kazakhstan, with Giustra owning a 30 per cent stake in one uranium project and 70 per cent of another. Then, lo: "In the months that followed, Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million," one of many subsequent huge donations.

Giustra meanwhile started directing shares of UrAsia to friends, including a big-time dealer named Ian Telfer, who received 2.2 million shares. And then UrAsia Energy merged with a South African/Canadian company called Uranium One, of which the same Ian Telfer would soon become chairman. The merger's largest shareholders happily began writing multimillion dollar checks to the Clinton Project and its latest ******* child, the Clinton Giustra project. Telfer committed $3 million.

Senator Hillary was silent through all of this, even though a part of the deal involved – incredibly -- Clinton's nominating the dictator and human rights abuser Nazarbayev as chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Even Joe Biden objected to this farce, but ultimately the dictator was awarded the chairmanship.

But when Hillary became secretary of state, the field of opportunity, along with the flow of money, widened. Vladimir Putin, Bill's pal since 1999, had become Hillary's friend, too. And in June 2009, Russia's atomic nuclear agency, Rosatom, bought a piece of Uranium One. Uranium One had been "aggressively" buying uranium assets in the United States. By 2010, the company owned or planned 61 projects in Wyoming, and held thousands of acres in Utah, Texas, and South Dakota. The plan was that Uranium One would control half of United States uranium by 2015. Then, also in 2010, "Rosatom announced it was seeking to buy majority control (52 percent) of Uranium One."

The Russian acquisition meant giant payoffs for the shareholders in Uranium One, and unsurprisingly, "several multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation donors were at the center of the deal," totaling approximately $145 million. None of these donations are listed in Clinton Foundation public disclosures. Despite protestations in Congress, the Russian deal went through, and today Russia, having started the bid at 52 per cent, "owns the company outright."

Hillary, of course, was secretary of state in 2010. Moreover, as secretary of state she was a member of the little-known Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), set up "to evaluate any investment transactions that might have a direct effect on American national security." The Russian deal was approved by CFIUS in October 2010. Hillary's opposition would have been enough to stop it.

Shortly after the Russian deal was announced, Bill was in Moscow to give a speech. His fee: $500,000.

And so it goes. "The Clintons point our that neither Bill, Hillary, nor Chelsea take a salary from the Clinton Foundation." While this may be technically true, the hundreds of millions that flow into the foundation do make for quite a tidy bundle. And Bill's preposterously overpriced speeches are apparently yawners: His "go-to speech, entitled 'Our Common Humanity,' is largely about the work of the foundation."

But business is business, and the Clintons have apparently never met a dictator they couldn't do business with. The examples abound, from every corner of the world reachable by private jet. For instance in the "house of horrors" known as the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]:

Former NBA star Dikembe Mutombo has worked with the Clinton Global Initiative as a partner…. In October 2011 he was a member of an official State Department delegation to Sudan. The following month he joined forces with a Hillary presidential campaign bundler named Kase Lawal on a $10 million venture to transport 4.5 tons of gold out of the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to a UN report, the deal involved some of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, including "individuals operating in [DRC] and committing serious violations of international law involving the targeting of children or women.

The warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, "belongs near the top of the list" of "nefarious criminal leaders in Africa." But the Clintons had hugely profitable deals in other "houses of horror," such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Nigeria is widely recognized as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It has also been one of the most lucrative countries for the Clintons. Over the course of more than fifteen years, they have collected large speaking fees, campaign-related funds, and large contributions for the Clinton Foundation from those who have made fortunes by working in the corrupt world of Nigerian politics.

When Hillary became secretary of state, Bill "booked two of his top three highest-paid speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each."

And what about the poverty-stricken people of Nigeria? When Bill appeared at an event there in 2013 to collect an award, "he handed out checks to schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their checks bounce."

Perhaps the saddest chapter in Schweizer's book is the one on Haiti, headed "Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style." You will remember the 7.0 earthquake of January 2010 that destroyed much of that ill-starred island, killing some 230,000 people and leaving millions homeless. It didn't take long for the Clintons to arrive. "With a cluster of cameras around him, Bill teared up as he described what he saw."

Esquire Magazine called Clinton the "CEO of a leaderless nation." In this "Super Bowl of disasters," the Clintons became the "referees," according to one contractor who was jockeying to compete. They parceled out jobs, as was their custom, to their friends, contributors, and cronies. For example, their old Arkansas buddy, Wesley Clark, arrived representing a Florida company, Innovida, a manufacturer of building materials. "Innovida received a $10 million loan from the US government to build five hundred houses in Haiti":

Sadly the houses were never built. In 2012 Osorio [the CEO of Innovida] was indicted and convicted of financial fraud. Prosecutors would later accuse Osorio, who drove a Maserati and lived in a Miami Beach mansion, of using the money intended for relief victims to "repay investors for his and his co-conspirators' personal benefit and to further the fraud scheme." He was ultimately sentenced to twelve years in jail. Innovida collapsed.

The chapter is filled with other fiascoes and swindles, with guest appearances by Sean Penn and Ben Stiller, and a petition prompted by Haitian lawyers for an audit of Clinton's ventures. In the meantime, however, the rubble-strewn streets of Port-au-Prince are still populated by those who saw their homes destroyed in 2010. These victims' net worth hasn't changed, but that of the Clintons and their associates surely has.

Schweizer has written an explosive and damning book. It is no wonder that, according to Business Insider, he has had to arrange full-time security for himself and his family. Shades of Vince Foster.

posted May 08, 2015 11:04 AM            

'Clinton Cash' is out, and the polls show it
By Washington Examiner
May 6, 2015

Democrats cannot be happy about the last two weeks. With the violence in Baltimore, one more potential Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton — former Baltimore Mayor and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley — has become far less attractive.

Yet at the same time as her inevitability grows, Clinton's prestige is starting to wane. The new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that for the first time since 2008, she no longer enjoys a positive favorability rating. During her time as secretary of state, Clinton's rating was consistently above 50 percent and at times approached 60 percent. Today, 42 percent of registered voters view her positively and 42 percent negatively.

Much worse, only 25 percent of registered voters now view Clinton as honest — down from 38 percent who said so in the same poll last year. Asked to score her on a scale of one to five, 43 percent rated Clinton's honesty as a one (the lowest possible) and an additional 7 percent rated her as a 2.

Although the poll was taken in mid-April, one reason for the trend is surely Tuesday's much-anticipated release of Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer's book on how the Clintons' non-profit organizations and their personal bank balance have intersected with Hillary's career at the State Department.

Several stories in the book were reported in advance by mainstream media outlets. One case involved the Keystone XL Pipeline. When it was under State Department consideration, pipeline investor TD Bank paid Bill Clinton $1.8 million to give 10 speeches over a two-and-a-half year period.

Clinton Cash is now available, and it contains many other examples that fit the same pattern.

In 2011, telecom company Ericsson was worried that an upcoming State Department crackdown on companies doing business in Iran would ensnare its telecommunications business with Iran's government. The Swedish company hired Bill Clinton to give a single speech for $750,000. A week later, Schweizer writes, the State Department released guidelines that didn't affect Ericsson.

Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation right after Clinton's State Department helped the company secure a contract with the Russian government.

The Clinton Foundation took more than $100 million in donations from companies with interests in mining the Congo, beginning immediately after then-Sen. Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. The Clinton State Department would later intervene on behalf of some of these companies.

Sure, some of the incidents could be written off as innocent coincidence. There is not a smoking gun in any one case. Unless you can do impossible things like read minds — or Hillary Clinton's emails — how can you know what's in her heart?

But in every single case, the appearance of impropriety is obvious. And there seems to have been no effort whatsoever to avoid major conflicts of interest of the sort that would get most people fired or arrested.

This is why the same Wall Street Journal poll shows that Democratic primary voters are becoming a bit more concerned about the party's one-woman field for the presidential nomination. The share of Democrats who want to see someone challenge her is now 43 percent, up from 38 percent in March.