Supplemental: You Know Who traffics with FIFA crooks!


Helderman, killing the pig:
Narrative is endless. Narrative is powerful.

Proving this point is Rosalind Helderman in today’s Washington Post.

Helderman is a well-known lover of scandal. In this morning’s front-page report, she finds it in the same old place, just as it has been written.

As always, You Know Who is committing grave harm with his Global Initiative. As Helderman starts, she describes a fiendish decision—

Good lord! You Know Who accepts a donation to help feed the hungry:
HELDERMAN (6/4/15): During the closing session of the Clinton Global Initiative’s 2013 annual meeting, Bill Clinton called to the stage a former rival named Hassan Abdullah Al-Thawadi.

Three years earlier, Al-Thawadi, a young Qatari businessman, had led his country’s successful effort to host the 2022 soccer World Cup,
beating out, among others, a U.S. bid led by Clinton. Al-Thawadi and his countrymen had rejoiced after they were awarded the tournament in an auditorium in Zurich, while elsewhere in the room Clinton and his team stewed.

Allegations that Qatar had bribed its way to the victory soon emerged, prompting an internal investigation by soccer’s governing body that had been going on for more than a year by the time of the CGI event.

At the gathering, Clinton stood on stage as Al-Thawadi talked with pride about plans to use technology developed for Qatari soccer stadiums to cool greenhouses and feed the hungry.
Have you followed the logic so far? Here’s the way it goes:

As of 2013, there were “allegations” that Qatar had bribed its way to victory in its pursuit of the World Cup. On that basis, You Know Who shouldn’t have let that young businessman play a role in “feeding the hungry.”

Does that really make sense? To us, it largely doesn’t. But narrative is powerful, and Helderman is surfing a standard group story-line, one we’ll be hearing again and again in the weeks and months to come.

Just for the record, Al-Thawadi seems to have been representing the government of Qatar at the CGI event. Helderman never seems to establish that point one way or the other.

So how about it? Assuming that’s true, should the Clinton Foundation have refused to accept Qatar’s donation on the basis of allegations which had emerged at that time?

If so, who was going to tell “the hungry” about the foundation’s decision? Based on occasional observations, Helderman doesn’t seem to have missed a lot of meals. Was she, the Post’s top scandal-lover, going to handle the task?

This is the three millionth recent report on a very familiar, unstated theme:

Bill Clinton should have rejected the money! He should have told the wretched of the earth that they can just go hang!

Creeps like Helderman get a warm feeling when they imagine that outcome. In the following passage, she tries to explain the ultimate logic behind her front-page report:
HELDERMAN: The Qatar donation has drawn attention amid a burgeoning international soccer scandal. Last week, federal prosecutors in the United States charged 14 people with bribery, fraud and other charges, alleging that the sport has been rife with corruption for two decades. Swiss authorities announced they are also specifically investigating Qatar’s bid.

The donation from the Qatari committee serves as the latest example of the willingness of the Clinton Foundation to accept big-dollar contributions from controversial and, sometimes, politically problematic sources. Donors have included foreign governments, Wall Street banks and some of the world’s richest business tycoons.
Even rich business tycoons! Surely the hungry don’t want to be fed with money from people like that!

Meanwhile, did you follow the logic of that passage?

Last week, prosecutors charged 14 people with bribery. This has “drawn attention” to Clinton’s decision to accept a donation back in 2013.

Should the Clinton Foundation accept contributions from sources which are “controversial?” It seems to us the answer is simple:

If you want to feed the hungry, the answer will often be yes. If you only care about scandal and script, you will see this matter differently. You’ll finger yourself as you tell the world about what You Know Who did.

Helderman is killing the pig in her front-page report. For journalists, this enjoyable practice is easy and fun because they rarely seem to consider what this foundation does.


  1. This series is really crimping the diapers of the sad let-me-try-to-explain-why-Somerby-is-the-real-problem crowd.

    It's wrong to be pleased with that, but I've been wrong before, too.

    1. As always, Bob Somerby is a day or three late and a jihadist short:

      FOUL 05.27.1510:00 AM ET

      Corrupt FIFA Has Clinton Foundation Ties; World Cup Host Qatar Gave Millions

      Jackie Kucinich in "The Daily Beast"

  2. "If you want to feed the hungry, the answer will often be yes."

    But Mr. Somerby, don't you realize the real issue is what kind of spread the Clinton campaign puts out for the reporters. As you know, Gore was a piker compared to that good ol' boy GW.

  3. 1) How does the Post continue calling itself a newspaper printing this kind of nonsense?

    2) After years of being on the receiving end of this kind of "journalism," is it any wonder voters believe that the Clintons are uniquely dishonest people?

    1. 1) ask Jeff Bezos.

      2) try decades.

  4. When I learn Clintons' daughter has a ten-million dollar apartment while Mom runs for office preaching about inequality, it makes me unlikely to consider voting for her. That doesn't mean Somerby isn't a national treasure.

    1. I'm not going to vote for Chelsea either. Not to mention, she isn't running for anything.

    2. Who does she think she is?

    3. Guess you wouldn't have voted for FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, either. They were all wealthy. So if you're wealthy, favoring policies that will help ordinary Americans simply doesn't count? How stupid can you get?

    4. "How stupid can you get?"

      Please, don't ask. It's already clear how eager he is to show us.

    5. Browbeating voters who aren't lesser of two evils voters and choose not to be part of the problem doesn't change them.

    6. There are no perfect candidates so we are all "lesser of two evils" voters to an extent.

    7. But there is a threshold of acceptability for many voters and mainstream party candidates can fall short. Insulting these voters doesn't change anything.

    8. 1136 & 355: lose your fainting couch?

  5. I agree that 10+ mil seems crazy, but just to be clear, "Clintons' daughter" is married to a banker and I don't think she paid for the whole thing herself. Also, if you're probably not going to vote for Hillary because her daughter and son-in-law have the bad taste to be rich, I don't think it'll take too long to find a reason to eliminate every other candidate.

    1. She made $1,620,000 per hour at NBC. You couldn't blame the average voter for believing that had something to do with the political position of her parents and that they could have put a stop to it if it they thought it was grossly unfair and related to their political clout.

    2. Poor and middle class people can't afford to run for office. We should count ourselves lucky to have a wealthy candidate complaining about income inequality. Most don't.

    3. There is nothing immoral about being wealthy if you use your wealth to help others, as Bill and Hillary do.

    4. The Romneys gave millions to charity when they were not installing car elevators in their homes.

  6. Perhaps if Hillary treated reporters better, they would treat her better.

    Reporters attending a Hillary Clinton speech in Houston on Thursday must remain within the confines of barricade and will not have a chance to interview the Democratic presidential nominee, they were informed in a note with big, bold red letters....

    The strict rules imposed on reporters attending the event are par for the course so far for Clinton’s campaign. She has been criticized repeatedly for choking off reporters’ access and refusing to take questions.

    1. Talk about a condemnation of the American press! You've validated everything Somerby says. I imagine the J-school professors could not be prouder that their alumni will only do honest journalism if they are pandered to by candidates.

    2. David's the living, posting, example of the adage, "you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."

    3. This is also Dinky's 3rd or 4th time around with this tired MRC bullet point. Trolls gotta troll.

  7. Perhaps if Hillary treated reporters better, they would treat her better.

    That's never worked before. Last campaign, Hillary brought donuts to a press bus and they almost hung her in effigy.
    She's not cool like they are.


  8. Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. i never believe in spell casting, until when i was was tempted to try it. i and my husband have been having a lot of problem living together, he will always not make me happy because he have fallen in love with another lady outside our relationship, i tried my best to make sure that my husband leave this woman but the more i talk to him the more he makes me fell sad, so my marriage is now leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. so with all this pain and agony, i decided to contact this spell caster to see if things can work out between me and my husband again. this spell caster who was a woman told me that my husband is really under a great spell that he have been charm by some magic, so she told me that she was going to make all things normal back. she did the spell on my husband and after 5 days my husband changed completely he even apologize with the way he treated me that he was not him self, i really thank this woman her name is Dr Aluta she have bring back my husband back to me i want you all to contact her who are having any problem related to marriage issue and relationship problem she will solve it for you. her email is she is a woman and she is great. wish you good time.
    He cast spells for different purposes like
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dream
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery

    Contact him today on: