“We’re going to make sure we don’t undermine the excellence and the results”, she said.
Advertisement
“Are you certain that there are no emails or foundation ties to foreign entities that will be revealed that perhaps permanently impact your presidential prospects?”
Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, debate the issue.
Hillary Clinton has never been great at understanding that, in politics, perception nearly always equals reality.
Despite its lofty and admirable mission, the Clinton Foundation has taken a lot of heat during this election cycle because of some of the sources of its donations. No problem, even if her plane had to be kept waiting.
As bad as that looks, though, it’s legally OK.
Yet now he and his wife are under attack for their good works, accused by Donald Trump of “pay for play”: using the Clinton Foundation as a way of extorting money from wealthy donors in return for government favors from the secretary of state. It also helps Americans get access to loans to make their homes more energy efficient.
Now, Damon Linker, a writer at The Week, points out that Hillary Clinton’s critics haven’t actually found a smoking gun in all of this, no evidence of a quid pro quo in which money was exchanged for services. Trump is just that unsafe. Instead, she offered a strident denouncement of Trump’s campaign and the so-called alt-right movement, which is often associated with efforts on the far right to preserve “white identity”, oppose multiculturalism and defend “Western values”. “We have two presidential candidates that have significant conflicts of interest”.
She’s crooked, you know. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported issues of compromised USA interests and nepotism: “an executive at the Clinton Foundation in 2009 sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with the United States ambassador to Lebanon because of the donor’s interests there”.
In addition to State Department functions, Band also corresponded with Abedin about personal requests of some Clinton Foundation supporters.
The AP found that 85 of those 154 people, or “more than half”, had donated to the Clinton Foundation or “pledged commitments to its global programs”.
At the minimum, Painter said Clinton should remove all Clinton family members from the foundation’s board, elect independent trustees, and take the Clinton name off of it.
Well, they’re catching up now.
But Hillary’s long history of avoiding provable infractions despite hundreds of hours of investigations and millions in taxpayer expense – from Whitewater to Benghazi to her private email server – may soon come to an end, not with a gold medal but with an Olympian loss of whatever faith remained in her integrity. There were representatives from at least 16 foreign governments, who donated as much as $170 million to the charity, but those representatives were not included in the 154 number, the AP reported. But access to the secretary of state isn’t trivial. Chagoury is a Nigerian billionaire who was forced by the Nigerian government to pay almost $300 million in 1998 to avoid prosecution for his allegedly corrupt ties to former dictator Sani Abacha. “It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office”.
Such favours included those dished out to Nobel Peace Prize victor Muhammad Yunus – who chairs a non-profit bank which has donated upwards of $200,000 dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
Even the most ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton must concede that the latest revelation regarding her connection to the Clinton Foundation – that numerous big donors to the charity appear to have had ready access to her when she served as secretary of state – doesn’t reflect well on the Democratic nominee for president.
Advertisement
Mathis is an award-winning writer in Kansas. Let’s hope voters have a better idea before Election Day. Boychuk is managing editor of American Greatness.
