In an article for the Nation, she writes, “The mission of the Clinton Foundation can be distilled as follows: There is so much private wealth sloshing around our planet…that every single problem on earth, no matter how large, can be solved by convincing the ultra-rich to do the right things with their loose change. […] The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place. In Clinton World, it’s always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: the Clintons grow ever more powerful. At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed ‘the land of money,’ all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.” (The Nation, 4/6/2016)
After a public speech, FBI Director James Comey is asked to comment about the state of the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email scandal.
He responds, “I’ve stayed close to that investigation” to ensure that it’s done competently and independently. He adds that it’s important that “we have the resources, the technology, the people, and that there’s no outside influence. So, if I talk about an investigation while it’s going on, there’s a risk that I’ll compromise both the reality and the perception that it’s done honestly, competently, and independently. So, I’m going to say no comment to that.” (Politico, 4/6/2016)