Your Presumptive Nominee For President in 2016 Has Been Exposed As Greedy, Arrogant, Dishonest, Conflicted and Corrupt. Now What, Democrats?


Today’s Washington Post expands on the Clinton scandal I wrote about here, with new and damning revelations. Not only did Hillary Clinton’s family Foundation accept millions of dollars in contributions (that is, bribes) from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State, at least one of these violated even the excessively permissive and unethical conditions permitting  such gifts (that is, bribes) agreed to as a condition of her confirmation. Here are some quotes from the story by Post reporters Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, which you should read in its entirely, with horrified comments from me interspersed:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday. Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations. The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels. The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

Did you know this would be permitted? I didn’t, and I make a living following conflicts and corruption like this. I’m sure the news networks had a Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears scoop to cover instead. Good job, you useless, incompetent news media, including the Post, which was moved to investigate six years later—you know, after its favored President got his way. Terrific “transparency,” President Obama. Sleep on, citizens of the U.S. Foreign governments are buying your government officials with the assent of Congress, and you couldn’t care less.
This is disgusting. If you are not disgusted with it, I’m also disgusted with you.

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

And we’re supposed to believe they didn’t know this at the time, right?
The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said…. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.The contribution coincided with a spike in the North African country’s lobbying visits to the State Department.

Like I said: bribe.

A foundation spokesman said Wednesday that the donations all went to fund the organization’s philanthropic work around the world. In some cases, the foundation said, foreign-government donations were part of multiyear grants that had been awarded before Clinton’s appointment to pay for particular charitable efforts, such as initiatives to lower the costs of HIV and AIDs drugs and curb greenhouse gas emissions.“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”

Yes, and it also enriched an organization carrying Hillary Clinton’s name, that she supports and wants to see succeed, that employs her husband and child, and that pays for her royalty-style travel. This blather from Minassian is smoke and spin designed to confuse the typical American whose eyes glaze over and whose mind begins musing on pornography as soon as the phrase “conflicts of interest” is spoken. What the Foundation does is 100% irrelevant to the question of whether a foreign power’s gift to it curries favor with Hillary Clinton, which it does and is designed to do—why is that such a difficult concept? If a corporation gives my non-profit theater company a big donation, I like that corporation. I will feel an obligation to that corporation. If that corporation is involved in a scandal, and NPR asks me to go on the air and talk about it, I have to recuse myself because I have an obvious conflict of interest that compromises my independence, judgment and objectivity. It is exactly the same issue here. Did you ever hear about Clinton recusing herself from any policy determinations that would affect Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Australia, Norway and the Dominican Republic, which also gave the Foundation, also known as “the Clintons” money during this period? Of course not, because this was a corrupt bargain.
The Foundation scandal is an example of where the ethics ignorance of the public is more than just annoying and frustrating. If the public cannot see why it’s corrupt fora Secretary of State to be on the take—don’t tell me that’s unfair: the Secretary, Clinton, took money from foreign governments while she was in office, advising the President and making policy herself. That’s “on the take,” by definition.

Some of the donations came from countries with complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government, including Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.

But they just gave because they supported the Foundation’s mission out of the good of their little foreign hearts! Who is so stupid and naive to believe that? Tell me, please, please, not you. How dumb does Craig Minassian, who is essentially the Clintons’ ventriloquist dummy—nothing personal, Craig, but you know you are—think Americans are that they would believe this?
Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Yes, because few corrupt and manipulative politicians and public servants have the excess of gall that the Clintons do, enhanced by their past experience with the press and the public allowing them to skate over scandals that normally end careers and poison reputations beyond recovery.

In a presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton would be likely to showcase her foreign-policy expertise, yet the foundation’s ongoing reliance on foreign governments’ support opens a potential line of attack for Republicans eager to question her independence as secretary of state and as a possible president.

“A potential line of attack for Republicans”? This trick again! This is one reason the public is so easily deceived, especially Democrats and progressives who, one would assume, should be able to understand why the Clinton corruption is inexcusable. The hell with “a potential line of attack,” how about smoking gun evidence billowing so much smoke showing Hillary Clinton is corrupt that the public finally wakes up and realizes that she should be disqualified from running for President despite her primary qualification, a vagina?

Foundation officials said last week that if Clinton runs, they will consider taking steps to address concerns over the role of foreign donors.“We will continue to ensure the Foundation’s policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as Secretary of State,” the foundation said in a statement.

I just thought I’d throw that one in for comic relief.

Look: I can’t make people pay attention or to educate themselves, or to have the ethical literacy of a slug, but this is a big deal. You can count on it being largely ignored by the news media, both because journalists are ethically obtuse and because most of them are in the bag for Hillary already. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of how self-centered, greedy and corrupt this “presumptive nominee” is, and that is serious, a threat to the national interest. I would say it was signature significance, but Hillary–and Bill of course—passed that point years ago. Everyone should know already they are dishonest, deceptive and corrupt. What this episode proves is that they are now certain, based on past experience, that they don’t even have to be careful about it.

We just can’t allow them to be right.


56 thoughts on “Your Presumptive Nominee For President in 2016 Has Been Exposed As Greedy, Arrogant, Dishonest, Conflicted and Corrupt. Now What, Democrats?

  1. You left out Bill’s Indonesian connection! Well, if Hillary’s little peccadilloes finally DO catch up with her, what’ll the DNC be left with insofar as a viable presidential candidate is concerned? There’s Andrew Cuomo… who now has much the same troubles as Hillary. There’s Jerry “Moonbat” Brown, author of the “California Miracle”. (That’s how the Democrats define “disaster” these days.) And, of course, Elizabeth “Minnihaha” Warren plus Joe “Wisdom Incarnate” Biden. The Dems have gone so far to the left that they don’t really have anyone that can even look sane, much less be so.

    • Love the Minihaha tag for Elizabeth Warren. A Boston Globe guy refers to her as Granny, which made me finally realize she looks (and acts) just like: Tweety Bird’s elderly, deluded owner.

          • Steve-O, you are right about “Fauxahontas.” (I like that.) I bet Warren never even had a residence in Virginia, before arriving in the Senate. So she offends me, because I have LIVED in Virginia, sir, thus I am a direct descendant of Pocahontas!

            To get my sarcasm fully, you have to read an engraving on a grave site in Arlington Cemetery. It’s a classic! A classic, that is, of 19th century name-dropping. So it has become a running joke, a semi-private joke, amongst people like me who like to turn that message into a prank, in mockery of name-dropping: “Hey, ME TOO! I am a direct descendant of Pocahontas, TOO!” [then mock a Jesse Jackson accent: “I *AM* SOMEBODY!” This prank long predates Warren’s racial self-identity.

            I am just grateful for the years I worked in Rosslyn, during which I was able to take many walks in Arlington Cemetery, else I never would have discovered my direct descendancy from Pocahontas.[wink]

              • OK, Jack, with respect, why should this entire slate of candidates be discarded? And given that Hilary is building a war chest to rival all war chests and plucking top people from the current administration, what makes you think she will give up the ghost?

                • Because she doesn’t want to run if she isn’t sure to win. Now she’ only 7 pts. up against GOP candidates the public barely knows.
                  That slate? O’Malley’s too liberal and a small-timer; Webb is an awful campaigner and too blunt; Jerry Brown has too much baggage and is older than Hillary.

                  • As yet she isn’t slowing down, I didn’t realize the lead was down to 7 points, although is that generally or against someone specific? Agreed, O’Malley is as yet not well-known enough and didn’t achieve enough that was positive to prevent the state house flipping. Webb is burnt out and achieved nothing in his one term in the Senate, and Jerry Brown is just too wacky to elect. Biden is rapidly becoming Clinton 2.0.

  2. The Left gives them a pass because they have been waging a lengthy political and cultural war against those who do not share their worldview.

    Think about it… and then take into account why Obama is so determined on the amnesty – he thinks adding the voters will “drown out” conservative viewpoints. Think about why the DNC took Chinese “soft money” donations prior to the 1996 elections.

    The Left feels that those who disagree with them on economic, social, and cultural issues have to be defeated by any means necessary. As such, they will not only overlook such ethical misconduct, in some cases, they view it as for the greater good.

  3. Sadly, we probably will. There are at least two commenters, probably more, who will rush to her defense and accuse you, Jack, of knowing nothing about ethics. I’d bet on it.

  4. Wait until we have a sitting president and first man who have a foundation merrily taking massive bribes from foreign governments. Won’t that be great. Maybe Bill and Hill and Chel can buy Moamar Ghadafi’s old Airbus A-380 so they won’t have to use taxpayer’s money and Air Force One to transport the Foundation’s loot back home. Wait a minute, where do they keep the dough? Are they stupid enough to keep it in U.S. banks? Hah.

    The other day, something happened I’ve been awaiting for well over twenty-five years. George Will referred to the Clintons as Snopeses. Thank you, George. Better late than never, public intellectuals.

  5. So The Washington Post has finally decided on some continuing coverage of this? No hurrahs for them, or for the rest of the media. I agree that the actions of the Clinton Foundation would put our national security at risk should Hillary have the balls (misuse of term intended) to run and actually win. But really, all it means for now is that the Clinton PR machine will go into ever increasing damage-control mode. And they’re very, very good at it.

    E.g., I did note with horror the comment that this will be fodder for a “Republican attack” on her candidacy. Republicans? What about the rest of us? What about those who just may believe in fairness, ethics, honesty, who are not Republicans? This is a typical Clinton-machine diversion. Make it political, and you divert people from the real facts.

    I don’t know if the Federal rules for 501(c)(3)s should kick in here, but the facts (we don’t even need the smell test) are enough. The arrogance here is astonishing — though I suppose it shouldn’t be, considering what we all know already about the Clintons — I say “all” with a grimace, because we “all” either don’t know it or refuse to admit or address it. Knee-jerk rationalizations and cognitive dissonance amid the Hillary club, and more come into play.

    You’ve said it all here, Jack. But I will add this: Hillary wouldn’t be the first corrupt, lying, thieving, narcissistic president we’ve ever had, but she would definitely be the worst. And she would put our nation at even further risk than Obama has done over his embarrassing years as POTUS.

    • And that is why this doesn’t matter. Everyone knows this is who Hillary Clinton is. They either don’t care because she is a Democrat, a female Democrat (she’s…”HILLARY!”), or because they actually support this sort of behavior. Hillary will run for president based on the loyal Democratic vote, the illegal and former illegal alien vote (once they have valid SSN’s, it will take a lot of digging to find out if they are eligible to vote or not), and the “wouldn’t it be wonderful to elect the first female president after the first black president” vote.

      We are doomed.

      • No one actively supports unethical behavior outright. What they do is rationalize it or justify it. Sometimes it’s justified, like Churchill’s bodyguard of lies for the truth in wartime. Wanting to elect a particular person for demographic reasons who is otherwise a proven incompetent and tyrant in waiting is not one of those justified circumstances.

  6. Hilary might not have a lot to worry about, since about 240 electoral votes are safely blue right out of the gate and it doesn’t take a lot to get 30 more.

      • Unfortunately, as you know, it’s not about how many of each party there are, it’s about how many of each party vote and how many of those votes count. Romney couldn’t get enough of the GOP voters to turn out, however many there might have been. Even if the GOP candidate can unite the libertarian and religious right wings of the party, the urban Democratic strongholds get counted last, when they know how many votes they need to manufac…ah, count to win.

          • Bullseye. Had the state in question in 2000 been Illinois or maybe even Pennsylvania rather than Florida, I submit that we would have had President Gore before Thanksgiving, after a huge sack of uncounted, overwhelmingly Democratic ballots was found in Chicago or Philly, counted, and the Dems pressed that all further action stop “so the nation can move forward.”

  7. Cloiser to home, what I really want to know is, will Beth, Zoe, Liberal Dan, Charles Green, tgt, and other reliably left-leaning commenters be encouraging everyone to vote for 45th President Hillary, no matter what?

      • I can’t speak for others.

        There is absolutely no way I could condone,let alone encourage, support for Ms Clinton.

        If I were in the Dems, I’d be doing everything in my power to ensure she’s not the DNC candidate. No-one I know is enthused about her, but that is probably just because I don’t liase with Left-leaning groups of different views.

        Remember though, I’m not American.18 months ago, we in Australia elected a centre-right government promising no major changes, just to clean up the financial mess left by the previous mob as the result of the GFC.

        Turns out they lied. Not just the usual porkies, but their policies have been the exact opposites of the promises 80% of the time. Hence record unemployment, increasing debt, and rampant corruption, admitted in Parliament so the police can’t investigate. Worst government in at least 40 years.

        3 “can’t lose” state governments of the same party have already fallen. Everyone’s just waiting for the next election to get rid of them.

        Personally, I think it was the diversion of funds from scientific research into training programs for priests to be installed in all public schools that did it. Or the re-introduction of Knights and Dames to go back to the middle ages. Bizarre stuff. Insane. Off the planet. Loonies controlling the asylum.

        Hence the revolt of the back-bench against the cabinet – the leadership will be ejected from power by their own party in March.

        But Hillary Rodham Clinton? Same thing, just mirror image.

            • We disagree on a lot of things.

              They’ll just offer excuses for her (or him) in order to distract attention from their manifest failings….

              Or just attack whoever the GOP nominee is. Every. Single. Day….

              No matter whom. To uphold the Democrat side, they’ll have little choice but to immediately “go negative”.

              I don’t think anyone could honestly contradict that. OK, the other side does it to. OK, some of the attacks will be well-founded.

              But… not all. Not most. Dishonesty rules.

              Both sides cry WOLF. So when a real Fascist, or a real Communist, a real Dictator-in-the-making comes along… then there will be no warning, the Left will think it’s just more Right-wing propaganda, the Right will think it’s just more of the same Librul nonsense.

              Ms Clinton in her younger days may have been wrong, but she had integrity. But those days are long, long gone, and as far as I can make out, nearly every criticism from the Right of her has been spot-on.

              She reminds me of the Kennedys. I don’t mean that in a good way.

              There are alternatives, just as there are sane alternatives on the Right. Just none that have any chance of nomination.

        • You’re probably right, about Zoe. It’s probably just me. For some reason, I have this impression, or “imprinting,” that Zoe comments most negatively and often about bad examples on the right. Of course, that could mean ZOE is on the right, and thus resents the bad examples commented on even more intensely, for that very reason.

  8. Jack,
    I have to say, I’m not disgusted (which, I suppose, means you’re disgusted with me), but not because I disagree in any way. Rather, this whole scandal seems par for the course with regard to a woman whose character we already well knew. Whitewater, numerous finance irregularities in her Senate run in 2000, Benghazi, etc.

    How long before you stop being surprised? At a certain point you’re dealing with a smoker’s problem in the sense that anyone who still supports her does so knowing knowingly. Stories like this only confirm what people like you and I think and are ignored by everyone else.

    I’m not suggesting these things aren’t worth caring about, only that doing so doesn’t really seem to matter — she’s been an unshakable fixture in politics for 3 decades now, she’s not going anywhere.

  9. You do have to admire the chutzpah, though. I mean, that’s some nerve: “Donations? What donations? I don’t see no donations . . . Oh, those donations. I thought you meant donuts. Yeah, no. I don’t see no donuts. I’m your girl! Let’s talk about something else. . . . Really? . . . What difference does it make? We’re talking about people supporting valiant causes to help the poor, the disenfranchised, the oppressed!”


  10. Something I haven’t seen discussed yet – Madam Secretary had the server for this e-mail in her house in New York. This means she was storing some of the most important secrets of the United States government in an unsecured location, where who knows whom could get to them. If a lowly clerk had secret documents stored in her apartment, she would be in jail for life.

    As for the Algerians, they wanted to help Haiti. God bless them. But they could have sent that money to the Red Cross, the UN, or Doctors Without Borders, and it would have done just as much good as sending it to Chappaqua.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: