'Ethics don't apply'? Eric Boehlert's pitiful defense of Clinton Foundation given doses of reality

Yep, Boehlert's in overdrive this morning. https://t.co/1LC0DmXx1k

— Jason (@jasonelevation) February 26, 2015

The Clinton Foundation’s ethics violations could be a big problem for Hillary Clinton if she does indeed run for the Democrat nomination next year, especially if the mainstream media pursues the story.

When that happens, Team Hillary can count on Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert to play goalie:

another snarky @washingtonpost piece on Clinton Foundation that forgets to mention it's, y'know, a charity; http://t.co/sxvQbcUsb9 #details

— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) February 26, 2015

So anything goes as long as an organization operates under the “charity” umbrella? Nice try.

https://twitter.com/Matthops82/status/570968046614892544
https://twitter.com/JayCaruso/status/570967309667459072

.@EricBoehlert @washingtonpost Is it an issue that Clinton Foundation accepted millions from hostile countries while HRC was Sec of State?

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) February 26, 2015

https://twitter.com/Matthops82/status/570966449755279360

Shouldn't you disclose how much the Clinton Foundation is paying MMFA before every tweet? @EricBoehlert @washingtonpost

— RBe (@RBPundit) February 26, 2015

How much of that sweet foreign cash is @EricBoehlert/@MMFA raking in? @RBPundit @washingtonpost

— J.G. Petruna (@jgpetruna) February 26, 2015

I'm betting 6 figures/year. RT @jgpetruna How much of that sweet foreign cash is @EricBoehlert/@MMFA raking in? @RBPundit @washingtonpost

— RBe (@RBPundit) February 26, 2015

Recommended

Merry Christmas: A Special Bonus Gift of Christmas Funnies Just for You

FuzzyChimp

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/cmahar3/status/570967138690674688

So, @EricBoehlert do we have you on record as saying that Hillary Clinton's charity accepting money from foreign governments was ethical?

— Aldous Huxley's Ghost™ (@AF632) February 26, 2015

.@EricBoehlert @washingtonpost Charity? HA! Def of oxymoron-> "Clinton Foundation Charity." True if @mmfa counts as a homeless person.

— Hootyman (@TheHootyman) February 26, 2015

https://twitter.com/BMS355/status/570966905747591169

.@EricBoehlert @washingtonpost A charity that accepts $$$ from terror states. How quaint.

— Harriet Baldwin ?? (@HarrietBaldwin) February 26, 2015

Shorter @EricBoehlert: Ethics don't apply to charitable foundations. @washingtonpost #ReadyForHillary

— Blame Big Government (@BlameBigGovt) February 26, 2015

https://twitter.com/SisMarvy/status/570969093181829120

@RBPundit @EricBoehlert @washingtonpost Slush fund masquerading as a charity. Ask the NYT from 2013:http://t.co/CrvNovE1NX

— Mike Nemesi (@realmikenemesi) February 26, 2015

Boehlert explained further:

@dbetzel @HarrietBaldwin @washingtonpost gee. maybe ask the 8M AIDS sufferers worldwide who get inexpensive medicine via Foundation.

— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) February 26, 2015

https://twitter.com/dbetzel/status/570977100385165312

@dbetzel @EricBoehlert @washingtonpost He's just pissed his candidate got her hand caught in the cookie jar when she was SOS.

— Harriet Baldwin ?? (@HarrietBaldwin) February 26, 2015

That seems to be the case.

Update:

Twitter cons spend day attacking Clinton Foundation and its work helping 8M AIDS patients. #smarttake

— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) February 26, 2015

Count the Washington Post as being among Twitter conservatives, or something.