A nation for sale under Hillary Clinton
AMERICA FOR SALE
Oil and Gas
Lakes, rivers and streams
YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY
By David Harsanyi
The Democratic Party often warns us that mixing big money and politics will corrupt democracy. They must have nominated Hillary Clinton to prove it.
The Clinton 'Foundation' was ostensibly set up to solve the world’s most pressing problems. Though it’s done some fine work, its most fruitful program has been leveraging Clinton’s position in the State Department to enrich her family, friends and cronies.
It’s against federal law for charities to act in the interests of private business or individuals. Yet the Clinton 'Foundation' secured high-paying gigs for its namesakes and helped for-profit corporations with family ties set up lucrative deals.
As it turns out, that’s probably the least corrupt part of the story.
It is becoming clear the 'foundation' was a center of influence peddling. Rock stars. Soccer players. Conglomerates. Crown princes. All of them paid in. All of them expected access to the 'US government'.
Want a seat on a 'government intelligence advisory board' even though you have no relevant experience? The Clinton 'Foundation' may be able to help.
Recently released emails prove the 'charity’s' officials had sought access to State Department personnel while Hillary was in charge. Folks like the prince of Bahrain, who donated $32 million to the 'foundation', needed to get in touch.
An Associated Press investigation finds that more than half the private citizens who met or spoke with Clinton while she was secretary of state also happened to donate to her 'foundation'. What are the odds? (Who and what REALLY received those 'donations'? Where are the results of a thorough audit of this rogue 'foundation'?)
It’s implausible that a majority of the 154 citizens — people who’d kicked in at least $156 million to her charity — would also happen to catch Clinton’s ear as she toiled away at State. It’s also worth remembering this list doesn’t even include officials from the 16 governments — many of them autocrats — who threw the 'foundation' another $170 million.
Recently, the 'foundation' announced it would ban donations from corporations and foreign countries if Hillary is 'elected president'. The question is: If it’s a conflict of interest when Hillary will be 'president', why wasn’t it a problem when she was secretary of state?
Let’s also not forget that during Clinton’s tenure at State, she failed to disclose that regimes across the world were giving her charity hundreds of millions. Because she needed to hide this, she ended up sending 110 emails containing classified information — eight of which had “top secret” information, according to the FBI.
These days, Hillary brazenly goes on Jimmy Kimmel to clown around about her “boring” emails.
Well, if they’re so irrelevant, why was she hiding them from the Justice Department? If it’s no big deal, why did it take four years and a lawsuit against the State Department to gain access to her planning schedules?
Why did she lie to the American people?
Erase tens of thousands of emails?
Set up a private server in the first place?
Hillary claims running the State Department gave her the experience and temperament necessary to be 'president'. But, if anything, it reminds us of the Clintons’ propensity for scandal and dishonesty. And, if Clinton 'wins' this year, she’ll become the most ethically compromised 'president' in contemporary times. Perhaps ever.