Alex Griswold of the Daily Caller reports that on Thursday, “Press secretary Josh Earnest dodged no less [sic] than ten consecutive questions in a span of five minutes. Nine of the 10 questions came from ABC’s Jonathan Karl, the 10th from CNN’s Jim Acosta. Karl demanded transparency – a very belated request – for the 2009 memorandum that somehow made the Clintons responsive to the administration on Foundation activities:
JON KARL: We’ve asked them. I’m wondering, in the interest of transparency — this was supposed to be all about transparency — can we see that memorandum?
JOSH EARNEST: I think the goal of the memorandum was to insure that even the appearance of conflict–of-interest was avoided by insuring that there was greater transparency and greater knowledge about the contributions that were being accepted by the Clinton Foundation for charitable work they do. That was the goal of the memorandum.
And the appearance of conflict of interest is now red-hot and unavoidable, so why would Earnest ruin things by showing this memo to the press?
The Acosta question spurred an answer Earnest sounded like an employee for the Clintons:
ACOSTA: I just wanted to follow up on Jon’s question about the Clinton Foundation. Do you feel and does the president feel that the Clinton Foundation and that Hillary Clinton provided sufficient information about the foundation’s activities while she was secretary of state? Are you fully satisfied with the disclosure from the foundation?
EARNEST: I haven’t been presented with any evidence to indicate that somehow there’s been insufficient information provided to the administration.
Saying there's "no evidence" matching Clinton Foundation donations with Team Obama actions at this point is a little like Baghdad Bob denying the Americans have reached Baghdad.
Asked by another reporter if President Obama “is comfortable and satisfied with what’s happened, what’s been revealed, and what the Secretary of State did in accordance to her agreement with him,” Earnest answered: “At this point, there has not been any evidence presented that would prompt the president or anybody at the White House to be unsettled by Secretary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State.” (He did go on to say that the president “continues to be very proud of her service.”)
Our colleague Barbara Boland at MRCTV picks up on Friday, when Karl returned to the subject.
KARL: Even aside from approval of [the Uranium One] transaction, the fact that you had such a large donation – group of donations – coming in that were not disclosed; that doesn’t concern the White House at all? That lived up to the standards that were set, forget Hillary Clinton, but by the president?
EARNEST: I think what is clear… is that there is no proof whatsoever, no evidence to indicate, that those donations had any influence on this particular policy.
Earnest replied a little later: “I have been in the position where, to put it mildly, other conservative authors have launched written books based on what they purport to be serious allegations against the president of the United States. And I’m often in the position of responding to those incidents and trying to defend the president from accusations that are not rooted or accompanied by any evidence. My point is that right now that’s what’s happening to Secretary Clinton. And there’s a spokesperson that Secretary Clinton hired who can answer these questions.”
