“Hillary Clinton’s Honesty Called Into Question In New Poll”…Wait, Why Is There Any “Question”?

 According to a recent AP-GFK poll, 61 percent of those surveyed—that’s only 61%—said “honest” describes Hillary Clinton only slightly well or not at all. Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed that “honest” was not the best word for her.

Gee, really?

This raises several important questions, such as..

1. What the heck is the matter with the 39% that would ever use “honest” in the same sentence as “Clinton”?

2. How much  is necessary to convince the nearly 70% of Democrats that unequivocal proof of habitual lying, violating signed pledges and dodging rules is indisputable indicia that one of their darlings is untrustworthy?

3. Why aren’t those Democrats embarrassed for their Party?

4. Why do they have so little respect for the nation?

5. How stupid does the  Democratic Party think voters are?

Last week, while the poll was being prepared for release, Vox, a reliable progressive mouthpiece that still has a greater capacity for integrity than 70% of their editors’ favorite political party, revealed that least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments gave to the Clinton Foundation and also lobbied the State Department while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

After a staggering chart of all the cash that nobody can prove was part of a quid pro quo understanding but which almost certainly was, Vox concludes, “That’s not illegal, but it is scandalous.”

Of course it is scandalous.

It also violates federal law.

Executive Order 11222–Prescribing standards of ethical conduct for Government officers and employees, is part of  30 FR 6469, 3 CFR, 1964-1965,  which is a federal law. While laying out the ethics standards that member of the Executive Branch, like the State Department, must comply with, it states,

“It is the intent of this section that employees avoid any action, whether or not specifically prohibited by subsection (a), which might result in, or create the appearance of–

(1) using public office for private gain;

(2) giving preferential treatment to any organization or person;

(3) impeding government efficiency or economy;

(4) losing complete independence or impartiality of action;

(5) making a government decision outside official channels; or

(6) affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Government.

The combination of Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server for official business, plus her eliminating 30,000 e-mails from the server without an independent auditor determining whether there was information contained that related to official business or ongoing investigations, plus her foundation’s acceptance of foreign contributions during her tenure after promising the Obama administration  that she would not, plus her failure to report such contributions immediately, plus the massive extent of the contributions listed by Vox, at very least create the appearance of every one of the six forbidden conditions.

#3 was violated outright per se by the e-mail machinations. That the rest created an appearance of impropriety to anyone not willfully blind or on the Clinton payroll is beyond argument.

That’s not all, of course. There is never an end, apparently, to evidence of Clinton cheating, dishonesty and greed.

The day after the Vox piece ran,the New York Times revealed that Bill Clinton’s aides helped start a Canadian charity that served as a shield to prevent disclosure of the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million to the Clinton Foundation, effectively avoiding the pledge of transparency Hillary Clinton made to be confirmed Secretary of State.

The Canadian shadow nonprofit is called Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), and operates in parallel to a Clinton Foundation project called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership. Though it is expressly covered by the agreement Mrs. Clinton signed to make all donors public while she led the State Department, that entity’s donors were not disclosed to the public using the classic Clintonian argument that a Canadian entity could not be legally  bound by the agreement, because under Canadian law contributors’ names cannot be made public.

Let me spell it out: after Hillary made a pledge to make all contributions public, her husband oversaw the creation of a way to acquire foreign contributions that could not legally be made public. Intentionally making it impossible to fulfill a pledge that was agreed to by another party in the belief that the one making the pledge would not intentionally impede what was promised is dishonest. If the Clintons knew this arrangement was in the works before Clinton made her assurances, they were also engaged in fraud.

And, as the Washington Post pointed out the same day as the Times piece, the Clinton Foundation’s claim that “under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor” was false, or, in the weasel words of the Post’s Fact Checker, who is apparently averse to alerting readers to the Clinton shell game, “not exactly true.” Moreover, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) was intentionally incorporated in the only Canadian province that provided even a barely plausible statutory impediment to meeting the Clinton Foundation’s promise to Congress and the Obama Administration regarding transparency—Vancouver, British Columbia.

Got that? The Clintons looked for a Canadian province that had a law that would, they thought, block the Foundation from revealing donors, allowing them to secretly accept the kinds of suspicious foreign contributions from foreign powers that Hillary swore they would  they accept.

This can only not seem blatantly dishonest to the lazy, ignorant, financially, legally and organizationally naive voter incapable of understanding the Clinton’s maneuvers….which describes a large proportion of the so-called Democratic base.

“You know. Morons.”

Even with those maneuvers, the Post determined that far from prohibiting disclosure as Clinton Foundation lie-mongers claimed, the Clintons had to adopt what Canadian lawyers called a “rather shaky” and an “extremely conservative view” of the Vancouver law in order to claim that the Foundation was prevented from disclosing donors. In other words, it wasn’t “prevented” from meeting Hillary’s agreed-upon transparent requirements. The Foundation tried to prevent itself from meeting them.

There is no question that Hillary Clinton’s involvement in this meticulous effort by the Foundation to accept money from foreign governments while it was legally and ethically prevented from doing so was dishonest, deceptive, corrupt and unethical.

The most important question of all, then, is..

Why are Democrats intentionally trying to foist a dishonest, corrupt and untrustworthy presidential candidate on the American public?

_________________________

Sources: AP, New York Times, Vox, Washington Post

 

40 thoughts on ““Hillary Clinton’s Honesty Called Into Question In New Poll”…Wait, Why Is There Any “Question”?

  1. “Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed that “honest” was not the best word for her.”
    Does that mean the same as saying dishonest is the best word for her?

    I would love to read a poll that came right out and said she’s a toxic liar. All those inversions and weasel phrases give word parsers like the Clinton’s a loophole big enough to drive the Scooby van through.

    • Polling is always misleading. Nevertheless, a response one could check that said,
      Honest? The Clintons? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That’s ridiculous!” would be refreshing.

  2. I was afraid the 40% who still believe would be a HIGHER number. And really, it’s irresponsible for the party to anoint her a candidate when she’s already shown her to be personally unable at the cabinet level. (supporting her husband when he screwed up is not as big a sin as what he did in her own name)

  3. Why? Because they think in terms of expediency and ideology, not ethics. The Clintons are staples of the party’s politics. Hillary Clinton, with all her faults, seems the best bet they have for retaining the White House. No Republican candidate could meet their ideological litmus test. Therefore, they back Hillary as long as she appears the most viable. The question of what the country might well lose as a consequence of her being elected is not considered. “What matters it if a man should gain the entire world, but lose his soul?” These, however, are the people whose delegates booed God thrice on the floor of their national convention before the entire world. The rank and file are stuck with the new hard left party of there’s, thinking that there’s no alternative.

    • Of course, she isn’t the best bet. If she was really the best bet, the Party should close up shop and give up. As an artical recently pointed out, she’s not really good at anything—not even lying. She has the flaws of the last several Presidential and VP candidates, —a liar like her husband, old like McCain, a flip-flopper like Kerry, gaffe-prone like Biden, tied to big money interests like Romney, divisive like Obama, relying on family ties like Bush, devious and ruthless like Cheney. PERFECT!

      • “Seems”, Jack. The media and a number of polls still paint her in that light. I also think a lot of Democrats believe that good things can happen for them if they get Bill back in the White House, even as First Husband!

      • And yet they are already publishing articles on the five reasons why she will be the next president, one commenter going so far as to say the GOP should close up shop right now and donate whatever money it’s raised to a fund for abused women as an apology.

        • Whistling in the dark. The old ploy of publishing stories about something being true so the gullible will believe its true and get on the bandwagon. Others—more honest, even Democrats—are writing that she will have a hard time surviving the primaries…if Bernie Sanders gets within 10% of her in a single primary, she’s dead. The comp is McCarthy in 1968, who proved LBJ was in the process of being rejected by his own party. Being beaten by Bernie is much more embarrassing than being beaten by Clean Gene.

          Hillary has never had a 50% approval rating in her life. The more people see and hear her, the less they like her. Her paid promoters and the unpaid ones in the media also claimed that the e-mail and foundation corruption wouldn’t nick her supporter at all, and would be a one week story.

          • If either O’Malley or Webb jump in now, I think that’s going to break her back, as it’s going to be obvious there’s blood in the water, all hers.

          • You guys (Jack and Steve-O) STILL think T. Regina doesn’t even stand a chance of being the Democrat nominee?! I will agree obliquely with you, Jack, that if she was not elected, it would be because too few women like her. But once the Republicans nominate their inevitable loser, that (T. Regina losing because of too few women’s votes) is negligibly likely.

  4. I have a lefty, lesbian, NYC born and raised, Psychology Ph.D friend who thinks Hillary is “hot.” So don’t forget that demographic.

  5. That’s a weird poll, Jack.

    Most of the people I know, “honest” wouldn’t be the first word I choose to describe them although it would be on the list.

    Bernie Sanders for President!

  6. He’s actually a “social democrat” per the New Republic. Hahahahahahaha. Amazing all the children and grandchildren of Jews who fled to NYC to escape Stalin (Noam Chomsky, Saul Alinsky, et al.) became, and continue to be, such staunch Marxists. Go figure.

  7. But I don’t understand. In their tax filings, The Clinton Foundation said they took no donations at all from any foreign or US government between 2010 and 2013. How could they possibly have taken hundreds of millions of dollars and then not noticed it or reported the majority of their donations for several years?

    Oh, I just noticed the word Clinton in the name of that charity.

    That requires a Gilda Radner “Never mind”.

  8. I see Chris Cillizza has weighed in on this in the Washington Post. The funniest thing about his piece is he stipulates HRC is competent and the most qualified candidate in the field. Hah. That’s funny. And really at the heart of the matter. It’s as if the Clintons are using their financial sliminess to distract from her incompetence. Which makes things easy for them. They are expert at countering financial and other sliminess. I can just here James Carville squealing “Don’t throw me in the briar patch!”

  9. You want to really gag with a spoon? Carly Fiorina threw her…ah…HAT in the ring this morning. Imagine Carly versus Hillary, then scream…loudly.

    • “Gag with a spoon”” I knew it! Dragin has been pretending all this time. He really is a middle-aged woman — former Valley Girl from California.

      • No, sorry Beth. I’m an old, decrepit Texan, but I’ve been to LA once and Sacramento once, and something must have rubbed off. Good God, I hope not. Those people are crazy.

    • I’m waiting for the Saturday Night Live spoof. An ad that says

      “Carly Fiorina for President. She can do for America what she did for HP!

      -paid for by ISIS”

      • The positive spin on Carly, and Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee, was that noted by Glenn Reynolds: if a similar array of candidates were on the Democratic side, while the GOP was conceding its nomination to a 65-year-old relative of a former GOP president, pundits would be writing about how the Democratic Party is the party of diversity and the “big tent.”

        It’s a shame that I would rather take my face off with a vegetable peeler than see any of those three in the White House.

  10. Could this country please just go ahead right now, and trade T. Regina for Angela Merkel? I would rather see Ben Carson debate Angela, haha.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.