INTEGRITY QUESTIONS DOG CLINTON CAMPAIGN

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

By Miriam Raftery

March 3, 2016 (Washington D.C.)—Following her strong showing in the Super Tuesday primaries, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary.  But several revelations this week raise troubling questions for Clinton supporters regarding the integrity of Clinton and her campaign:

  • The U.S. Justice Department has granted immunity to Brian Pagliano, the staffer who set up a private e-mail server in Clinton’s home, as the investigation into allegations over classified emails continues, the Washington Post reports.  What does the staffer know and could Clinton face indictment?
  • The Clinton campaign and Super PACs supporting Clinton have paid pundits who have appeared on major  TV news shows. They were presented as neutral analysts , all touting Clinton’s candidacy and downplaying the electability of her opponent, Bernie Sanders.  TV networks failed to disclose financial ties, a clear violation of journalistic ethics, the Intercept  reveals in an investigative report.
  • Former President Bill Clinton has drawn criticism for holding a rally for his wife outside a Massachusetts polling place, using a megaphone for amplification and even entering two other polling places on election day. Massachusetts law prohibits electioneering within 150 feet of polling places, the Boston Globe reports. No charges were filed despite videos of the activities, though the Secretary of State did sent the Clinton campaign a reminder of the state’s rules.

The federal investigation of e-mails sent and received by Clinton on her home server while she was Secretary of State poses the most serious concern for the party, raising the specter of a candidate winning the Democratic nomination, only to potentially face criminal charges during a general election or even a conviction after being elected president.  Of course the Justice Department could also clear Clinton of wrongdoing, but the mere spectacle of a presidential candidate being interrogated could influence some voters.  If the protected staffer becomes a whistleblower and/or felony indictment  occurs before the general election in November, does the party have a plan B?

Paying pundits to pose as neutral political analysts when in fact they were propagandists seeking to sway voters ,  some with the clear knowledge of the media, is a deceptive tactic bound to anger many voters.  Will it backfire as news spreads through social media, a growing alternative source of news for voters distrustful of mainstream media (and in this case, for good reason)?

The Clintons are seasoned campaigners and surely knew that  picking up a bullhorn outside a polling place or shaking hands inside a poll where votes are being cast would be construed as violating election laws and ethics.  The tactic is being denounced by supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders, who perceive the incident as arrogance on the part of the Clinton campaign and arguably an effort to suppress votes.

Whether these  controversies will impact enough voters to turn the tide in the upcoming primary states  however, remains to be seen.

 


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

Clinton disingenuousness

Can anyone believe that a former President of the United States and the former First Lady and prior presidential candidate did not know the rules on campaigning near let alone in a polling place when open? At a minimum, Hillary should be fined and lose her MA delegates. Several outraged people waiting to vote took videos. Some people actually could not vote due to delays from this action.