The Progressive Corruption Of And Betrayal By The Democratic Party, PART II: Hillary Denial

dead donkey

It is not even June of 2015; the 2016 election is almost a year and a half away. Yet already there is so much smoke—but no smoking guns! Well, no new ones, anyway—around Hillary Clinton’s conduct, finances and character that it would have any major city’s fire department speeding to the source in panic. Her conduct as First Lady placed political expediency above common decency; her financial machinations were never fully unraveled but had the smell of a scam. She became Senator via nepotism rather than merit; she was made Secretary of State in a political deal. In that role, she engineered the fiasco in Libya, a “re-set” with Russia that backfired, and generally left fingerprints all over Obama’s epically failed foreign policy, including the disastrous withdrawal from Iraq.

The nation learned that she violated both her own agency’s policies and national security protocols to control her e-mails, then dumped 30,000 of them before they could be independently examined and subpoenaed by Congress. Her explanations for this ranged from ridiculous to untrue. She violated her deal with both Congress and the Obama Administration regarding accepting contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments, and attempted to use a Canadian affiliate to cover up some of them. Objective observers regard the Foundation as a huge Clinton Family advancement slush fund and a likely influence-peddling, quid pro quo device, though an uncommonly clever one. The Foundation itself has failed to meet non-profit best practices, and is regarded with suspicion in the non-profit sector by those who monitor charities. Meanwhile, the outrageous speaking fees raked in by both Clintons appear to be naked greed at best—taking scarce money, for example, for speaking to colleges in financial distress—and thinly veiled, plausibly deniable bribery at worst.

Every week–day?— brings more. Yesterday, we learned that shady Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, whom the Obama Administration refused to allow Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to hire because, well, he is shady, was paid $10,000 a month by the Clinton Foundation to advise her informally on Libya. Foul. The Clinton Foundation is a non-profit charity and operating foundation that supposedly…

“convenes businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change”

…not one that “collects tax-deductible contributions under false pretenses so cronies of the Clintons can be paid stipends for work that has nothing to do with the Foundation’s mission.”

In Politico Magazine, one of the most dishonest and relentless of Clinton spinmeisters from the old days, perpetually angry Joe Conason, declares this another “Fake Clinton Scandal,” saying that it “will  fail to turn up any real wrongdoing.” Real wrongdoing to corrupt hacks like Conason must require dead bodies and smuggled state secrets. In the non-profit field, Joe, where I have frequently worked since 1975,  a non-profit organization that uses charitable funds for non-charitible purposes and either misleads donors to give money that ends up in the pockets of board members’ pals, or that lets donors pretend money is intended for charity when they know it is ticketed for something else is engaging in “real wrongdoing,” big time, and maybe even fraud. This has been the Clintons’ supposed occupation for years.

Glad I could clear that up for you, and incidentally, Joe, you are beneath contempt. How do you live with yourself?

Right before learning about Sid, we found out that Bill Clinton maintains a shell corporation that allows Hillary to legally omit reporting its activities, since it passes through money to other sources. Thus we do not know how much money Bill Clinton was paid for speeches and mysterious “consulting contracts” from corporations and foreign governments. This is the same device that Democrats attacked Mitt Romney for employing in 2012.  We also learned that Clinton Foundation donors got sweetheart weapons deals approved by the Clinton State Department:

“Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.”

All a coincidence, I’m sure, right, Joe? No real wrongdoing. Actually, this is a conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety, which is why Congress and the Obama Administration extracted a promise from Mrs. Clinton that the Foundation wouldn’t be accepting such “gifts.” Conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety are wrongdoing, as in unethical.

But then so is breaking express promises to Congress made under oath.

And, what’s this? The Clinton Foundation’s money-grubbing paws were also in on the financial shenanigans of FIFA, the international soccer organization, now at the center of a massive bribery investigation and prosecution.

Writes Ron Fournier at the National Journal:

“Unless the Clintons return foreign donations, divorce themselves from the charity, and allow an independent review of relevant State Department email, the drip, drip, drip of these stories will become a deluge of mistrust.”

WILL become? Will? Why in the world would anyone in their right mind trust Hillary Clinton? One poll recently found that only 25% of the public thought she was honest, which I found stunning: imagine, a quarter of the country is illiterate, brain-damaged, or hasn’t paid attention to the news since 1988!

All of which adds up to this question: What is the Democratic Party today? What does it mean to be a Democrat? Aren’t both parties dedicated to seeking what is best for the United States of America, as they sincerely see it? Are they not obligated to identify and support men or women of skill, patriotism, honesty, courage and good character to lead the nation in war and peace, who can gain the public’s trust, deserve that trust, and make every citizen proud, confident, and full of hope?

Or is the Democratic Party today nothing but a corrupt, cynical, fraudulent organization that is willing to compromise the ideals of the nation, its security and future, in order to enrich its members and benefit its supporters, using any means necessary, as the United States declines, abandons its principles, and is finally looted and rotted into a shadow of what once seemed its destiny?

If the latter description of the party is not accurate, and I cannot express how intensely I hope it is not, then how can the Democratic Party’s leadership, members and supporters possibly allow Hillary Clinton to stand as its candidate for President in 2016, at this crucial time in its history? For to do so cannot be reasonably  interpreted as anything but a grand betrayal of the nation, its people, its legacy, principles and meaning to the world.


Pointer and Source: James Taranto

Facts: Yahoo, Washington Post, IBT, Daily Beast, National Journal

51 thoughts on “The Progressive Corruption Of And Betrayal By The Democratic Party, PART II: Hillary Denial

  1. The Democrat leadership- along with its rank and file- will support Hillary Clinton as long as they think she’s their most viable contender for the presidency. Nothing else matters.

      • I understand that Clooney is seriously considering a run for public office! Certainly, he and those others have name recognition; but we both know there’s a lot more to it than that. No one would take Tiger Woods or Taylor Swift (!!) seriously as a political candidate in any race- much less the presidency itself.. To have a VIABLE candidate, you need someone who can garner a lot of top level support, who knows his/her way around in a campaign mode and knows “where the bodies are buried”. In the latter case, this is literally true with Hillary. And she has the Clinton Foundation plus a lot of prior time in the White House.

        These factors- regardless of how negative her “services” actually were in practice- still make her the top contender over any other visible alternative. With her scandals starting to boil to the surface, this may change. However, they said that about both Bill and Barack, too. As it stands now, Hillary is still the favorite for the nomination. The central purpose of the Democrat leadership now (as always) is to win. They’ve come too close to their goal of a perpetual power structure to back off for another generation.

        Of course, I’m just telling you what you already know.

          • A lot of people still think different, Jack. If she pulls off getting the nomination, every Democrat will still rally behind her and do whatever it takes to get her elected.

        • The cheerful assistance of JournoList can’t be understated, either. JournoList, a progressive mailing list of various press and television journalists was used by them to preplan smears of anyone who dared question the annointment of Dear Leader. Look here ( for some fascinating if sickening reading. The fact that anyone who belonged to JournoList (the self-described “unofficial Barack Obama election committee”) continued to be employed by any of the major press outlets tells you everything you need about the principles of those same press/media outlets.

          • I’ve heard of them, RM. Thanks for the link. When the bulk of the “free press” of a nation is skewed toward a particular political movement and seeks to enforce that concept on its colleagues, it becomes no better than a state controlled propaganda bureau. Perhaps worse.

  2. The Democratic Party is and always has been the party of Big Government, Big Labor, and piecing together a majority from minorities. It was also the party of Catholics until it turned out more votes could be garnered from women by supporting abortion. It is the party of buying votes with money stolen from those skilled and motivated enough to earn it on their own in the hopes of creating a permanent underclass of unmotivated people dependent on that money that will keep voting to keep it coming. It is the party of infinitely flexible standards when it comes to behavior, depending on who is doing the behavior and whether he advances their goals. It is the party of underfunding and overdeploying the military in ways that undercut its primary mission, and of making certain law enforcement has none of the ability to do its job yet all of the responsibility when something goes wrong. It is the party of sizzle over steak, spin over fact, and rock stars over statesmen and women. In short, it’s the only party that could have produced Hilary.

  3. “WILL become?” I actually see that as a grain of hope than even the shills realize they may be backing the wrong horse. Some people are so in love with the idea of a viable female candidate that they aren’t putting enough emphasis on viable. I see all this effort and anointing is truly wasted effort in trying to get a winning candidate. Her campaign is a waste of money at this point, and that I resent.

  4. And yet, she still leads the field, both in her own party, if it can be called that, and the Repubs. Of course, it’s hard to tell with the Repubs, who are running everybody but the county dog catcher here in Texas.

  5. Unfortunately the Democrats haven’t produced any viable candidates to challenge her. Elizabeth Warren probably has more integrity than Hillary but she’s too lefto for my taste. Bernie Sanders? Who are we kidding!! I’m waiting for some demo to say “the Empress has no clothes”.

      • Both are light weights with little funding and no merits besides. Additionally, both come from tiny northeastern states that each helped to ruin with an excess of leftist ideology. If they wanted a Democrat with effectiveness and prestige, they’d pick Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee. A lot of Republicans would vote for him… including me! But he’s not ideologically pure and too damn honest. Maybe Old Weird Jerry will run. Let him try to run on the “California Miracle” nationwide. Republicans will be lining the streets holding up bottles of Ozarka, yelling, “Thirsty, Jerry??”.

  6. Jack,
    This isn’t a critique of your article, but I’m finding it harder and harder to care. Not because I don’t (I do), but because each new revelation seems to be yet another example of what we already know: the Clintons could give the Underwoods a run for their money.

    I would say they’re corrupt, but they’re not; I think they literally can’t help themselves. At some point dishonesty for them became like diabetes — they did it so often and so long that something in their collective brain clicked and now they’re just wired that way. The only word that comes to mind is evil, and all their wrong-doings simply being symptoms of a larger illness.

    The only reason I don’t tune out entirely is that I’m still amazed how many people refuse to see it. At least in House of Cards Frank’s supporters KNEW he was corrupt, they just considered him the lesser of two evils. With the Clintons, however, their admirers seem genuinely enamored.


      • Jack,
        I don’t think, or rather, I’ve never seen any direct evidence that the Clintons have murdered (at least in the push-you-in-front-of-a-train way Frank Underwood has), but it also would not at all surprise me. They’re that good (or bad) to me. If there is any one or two people who could get away with murder, it would be them. The sheer complexity of their machinations is almost admirable (which is why Underwood-like characters are so popular in fiction; it appeases our collective id), were it not for the fact that it’s built on the backs of so much evil that there’s no justifying it.


  7. I can’t disagree with you, Jack. On the other hand I can’t bring myself to vote for a Republican. This is a party who’s last canidate wrote off 47% of the Admerican public as worthless and refused to release his tax returns even to refute Reid’s accusation of avalling himself of the “get out of jail free card” for bringing home untaxed income. He may have denied the charge, however, since he had the documents to refute the charge and did not present them I am entitled to belive that the charges were most likly true. The actual field for the republicans still appears to belive America can be the “Worlds Policeman.” That denial of imperal over reach is a major and fatal flaw in all of them goes with out question. Since I lve in Indiana which will go for the Republican, even if he chanels Benito Mussolini I may just skip the presidential line on the ballot. However I hope that I have a chance to vote for Bernie in the primary!

    • You missed a lot. First of all, Romney didn’t say 47% were worthless. He said that percentage was essentially bought off and dependent on government largesse—and that’s accurate, almost precisely. The truth hurts. It’s a ridiculous percentage. Romney did release his taxes—don’t know how you missed that. It showed that he paid more than he had to pay. Of course, Romney isn’t the template for all Republicans, so writing them all off because of him, whether your information is right or wrong (it’s wrong) makes no sense.

      Your position is just plain partyism. The issue is the individual is what matters, not the party. That’s especially true of technocrats like Romney, and either Clinton, who have no principles, just tactics. Meanwhile, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are as loathsome as any national politicians to crawl out from under rocks in the last 50 years, including such scum as Tom DeLay and Jesse Helms. With inexcusable leadership like that, there is no excuse for arguing that any Democrat is superior to any Republican. Mitt Romeney was more trustworthy than those three on the worst day of his life, which mat have been the day he put his sick dog on his car roof.

      I just wrote about the World’s Policeman issue, and it is irrefutable that 1) there must be one and 2) the only nation that can do the job is this one. The current chaos in the world is the result, in great measure, of Obama’s denial of the unpleasant truth. Being willing to shoulder the expense, pain, risk, blame and sacrifice of keeping the world from maniacs and tyrants is part of being an American. Too bad the UN is corrupt…but it is.

      Bernie is honest but ridiculous. Free college for everyone. Sure, that’s reasonable. It will bump that 47% higher, though…

      • Looking at that list of Democrats, add in Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama himself, and I don’t know that I’ve seen a list that scary since the Devil put together the jury for Daniel Webster.

      • “The issue is the individual is what matters, not the party.”

        You are the last person in America who believes that Jack. Just about everyone votes the party line except for that small percentage of Independents that I keep hearing about.

            • Speaking as one whose been involved in the process, I can tell you that the primaries ARE important. But it’s the general election that places people in office. When you go into that voting booth, you have to remember that EVERY choice may well impact your future. In fact, those guys at the bottom of the ballot are liable to be the most important of all in your everyday life. In America, you can vote straight party at the top of the ballot, but you can qualify that with individual votes down the ticket if you wish.

              Far too many voters are just too lazy to do more. Some don’t even bother with resolutions or amendments at the very end of the ballot! Others just bring in a voter’s guide from a newspaper or some activist outside the polls and vote that way. And, of course, some just vote for those people who have promised them free stuff from the public treasury. This is how you get the number of idiots and/or criminals in office that you do.

              If you really care about the quality of people in government, you take the time to find out about them, mark your choices BEFORE heading out to the polls and cast your ballot accordingly. That keeps the line moving and is respectful of your voting neighbors. If you worry about the purity of the election, then volunteer to serve on the local precinct election staff. I’m 64 and am often the youngest guy there!

              One last: Don’t go by what they say or what the papers claim. Deeds speak louder than words. If the guy looks, talks and acts like a snake (or a dullard- which is just as bad in office!) the odds are he’s just that. You’ll make mistakes in judgement on occasion (I have!) even after meeting them, but the next time, you’ll know better. it’s a lifelong effort being a free citizen. The alternative, however, makes it worthwhile.

          • Numbers lie. Most independents lean one way or the other — or don’t vote. Some people even register for the opposite party to influence primary elections in their particular states — assuming their states have that requirement.

  8. Orin, the fact that you can detect moral equivalence between Romney and any skeevy Democrat on the presidential track is proof that you can’t be taken seriously. Jack nailed it in his response, but your willful blindness to the difference. between Mitt Romney and the Clinton’s removes you, and others who think like you, from a rational discussion.

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.