And now we know why she didn't want to do it: the Clintons release their taxes

Bill and Hillary Clinton have finally released their income tax returns for the years 2000-06.  In these years, they list an income of almost $109,000,000.  (Do all the blue collar voters supporting HRC feel like chumps yet, or will they quit voting for her when they learn she's been slow to pay the health ins. premiums for her campaign staff?  Remember, helath care issues are very important to her!)

It made the front page of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune.  I quickly scanned the News-Gazette and the Chicago Sun-Times,  but didn't see mention of this in either paper. 

I'm left wondering how late Friday this was released, and do they honestly hope people will have forgetten about this by Monday? 

Did either John Edwards or Mitt Romney make this much in the same time frame?  The Clintons are among the 14,500 richest people in the U.S.

Peggy Noonan has the week off at the WSJ; I can't wait to see what she writes about this next Saturday.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There was a story about this at politico.com.  They said the tax returns were released late Friday afternoon, but they didn't say at what point between 3 p.m. and 11 p.m. this took place.

And Hillary enjoyed a wave of positive spin when it was mentioned that they gave 10 million to charity, but the charity was the "Clinton Foundation".

On the other hand, is it fair to mention a number without driving home the point that it was for about an eight year period?  At first I thought they were saying $109 million for one year.  Not the case.

 

And Hillary enjoyed a wave of positive spin when it was mentioned that they gave 10 million to charity, but the charity was the "Clinton Foundation".

Is there some reason to believe the Clinton Foundation isn't actually a charity? That it doesn't do charitable works? Yes, I imagine they started it, but then it seems reasonable that they want it to have money to good works with, doesn't it?  Should be look equally down upon the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

It seems like you're trying to insinuate that there's something untoward going on here, without actually supporting that.

 

hey Narc, google "Bill Clinton Kazakhstan" and tell me what you think.

Is the Clinton Foundation doing good work?  Maybe, but somedays it isn't passing the smell test.