Skip to main content

EXPOSED: The Infuriating Reason Behind NYT’s Hillary Endorsement


We’ve heard a great deal about where the Clintons are getting their money: foreign governments, corporations and charities, sending tongues wagging. While the New York Times is spending its time filing reports on traffic tickets earned by the Rubios, the Clintons have always been treated with kid gloves in proportion to their extreme ethical lapses.

Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon may have discovered why the Clintons are a favorite of the Times, in addition to the simple fact that they are a liberal political dynasty.

A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

The donations, Goodman goes on to explain, were far larger than what was the norm for the charitable organization, which generally gives between $2,000 and $25,000 on average. The large donation in 2008 was the last made by the Clintons to the New York Times fund to aid the neediest New Yorkers.

At the time of the endorsement there was a contentious debate between the Times editors over who would receive the nomination,

The Times endorsement was controversial at the time because there was speculation about whether it was swayed by pressure from the Clintons.

In February 2008, the New Republic reported that the Times editorial board had had two contentious meetings that January before Sulzberger “tipped the scales in [Clinton’s] favor.”

Vanity Fair also reported that May that Sulzberger intervened in favor of Clinton after he was lobbied heavily by one of Clinton’s top financial backers.

“The Times editorial board was, apparently, planning to endorse Barack Obama in the New York primary; the Clinton campaign, getting wind of this, called upon one of its major financial supporters [Steven Rattner], the best friend and principal adviser of Arthur Sulzberger Jr.,” Michael Wolff wrote in Vanity Fair.

“Rattner is thought to have petitioned Sulzberger, and Sulzberger thereupon overruled his editorial board, which then backed Clinton.”

While not technically illegal, this exchange, like many others made by the Clintons in their quest for a Hillary presidency smacks of impropriety. Neither party disclosed the donation at the time of the endorsement, nor can we expect future donations to be disclosed before endorsements this cycle. If Hillary and family are this blasé about ethical lapses now, what would be for sale while Hillary is in the White House? Likely more than just the Lincoln bedroom.

Comment below: The Clintons have become more brazen since they were in the White House last. Do you think there are more scandals waiting to be exposed?