From Dylan Byers writing at Politico:
Right about the time Drudge Report splashed a link to Jonathan Chait’s latest column across its homepage, I got a g-chat from a Democratic strategist: “This is a big deal,” he wrote. “My gut tells me it elevates this story to something bigger and more needing of her response. I think this might take away the chance of this ordeal being seen as a partisan witch hunt.”
The story in question is, of course, the revelation that Clinton Foundation donations and Clinton family speaking fees may have influenced Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State — which, if true, would be an extraordinary conflict of interest. In the last 24 hours, The New York Times, POLITICO, The Washington Post, Reuters, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal have all published reports on such possible connections, based off the forthcoming book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, “Clinton Cash.”
Just yesterday, The New Yorker’s John Cassidy argued that the “Clinton Cash attacks could end up aiding Hillary,” because it would enable her campaign to dismiss the book as a partisan attack. Indeed, Clinton and her team have been doing just that. “We are back into the political season and there are all kinds of distractions and attacks,” the candidate said on Wednesday. Meanwhile, her press secretary Brian Fallon has been writing internal memos and public posts dismissing the whole thing as an agenda-driven smear campaign.”
The fact that Schweizer’s revelations have now been vetted and reported out by the likes of the Times, POLITICO, etc., means the Clinton campaign can no longer be so dismissive. And while Chait’s column is probably not the definitive nail in that coffin — “I think the stories themselves achieved that” — it is certainly an added blow, if only because it is so damning in its assessment of what he dubs the “disastrous Clinton post-presidency.”
Read the rest of the story at Politico.