We Now Have Definitive Proof That Hillary Clinton Was Engaged In Blatant, Illegal Influence Peddling

The Office of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has confirmed that Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State,  made a personal call in March 2011 to  pressure—my sourcesays says “demand”—that Bangladesh’s prime minister  restore Dr. Muhammed Yunus, a 2006 Nobel Peace prize winner, to his previous position  as chairman of the country’s most prominent microcredit bank, Grameen Bank.  The bank’s nonprofit, Grameen America, which Yunus chairs, had donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative. (Gee, I wonder why.) 

There is a recent video of Hasina explaining this episode to her Parliament.

To be clear, it was illegal for Hillary Clinton to use her position and influence with the U.S. government to assist any donor to  her spouse’s charitable foundation, and if you really think it was just her spouse’s, I have a perpetual motion machine for sale that you might like. She also knew it was illegal. Federal ethics laws require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that have an impact on their family’s business. 

Federal laws prohibit bribes, too.

Yunus had been disqualified from serving in the position, but had illegally served anyway, and collected a salary,  for a decade past the statutory limit. After complaints were filed, he was terminated by order of the high Bangladesh court. So not only was Clinton delivering a political favor bought and paid for by a Clinton Foundation “donation,” she was asking the Prime Minister to break her own nation’s laws.

This is real, stinky, high-level, low-class corruption. There is no other way to describe it. Clinton was using her position with the U.S. government for personal profit, and abusing the public trust by doing the bidding of foreign nationals in exchange for cash. Moreover, you know and I know that this could not have been some weird one-off aberration due to Hillary’s interest in Bangladesh. If she did this once there, she did it in other instances. I cannot emphasize enough how serious conduct it is. It is as unethical, venal and dirty as public service gets.

This was your candidate, Democrats. This was your champion, feminists. This was your standard-bearer, liberals. This is the woman whose defeat has sent you into the maw of madness, progressives. Now what?

Hillary Clinton was unfit to serve by virtue of her conduct and her character; I said so for many months, and this is smoking gun evidence. I will be watching to see who among her supporters and cheering section has the integrity to admit it.

I admit: the story shocks even me.

Let’s see if the revelation by the Prime Minister makes the headlines in the news shows, the Times and the Post. Let’s see how the Clinton machine tries to spin it.

You know they will.

 

36 Comments

Filed under Around the World, Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Family, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement

36 responses to “We Now Have Definitive Proof That Hillary Clinton Was Engaged In Blatant, Illegal Influence Peddling

  1. Chris

    To be clear, it was illegal for Hillary Clinton to use her position and influence with the U.S. government to assist any donor to her spouse’s charitable foundation, and if you really think it was just her spouse’s, I have a perpetual motion machine for sale that you might like.

    Funny, I said something similar about you believing that the Rosenstein memo contained the real reasons for Trump’s firing of Comey.

    But I guess you’ve made it clear that we should always, always extend the benefit of the doubt to Trump and never, ever extend the same to Clinton.

    • Holy Cow, Chris. If you really think that made sense or is a remotely valid comparison, you need medication.

      See, Chris, when someone says “He said this to me and asked me to do something,” that’s evidence that it occurred, admissible in court, When someone says, “I think there were other things behind that decision,’ that’s not evidence, it’s speculation.

      The exact manner in which the rationale cited in the memo affected the decision to fire Comey is unknown and unknowable. However, the memo proved that he could be fired for cause. That’s all it needs to do. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

    • Glenn Logan

      Not sure what is this “doubt” you speak of.

  2. Glenn Logan

    To be clear, it was illegal for Hillary Clinton to use her position and influence with the U.S. government to assist any donor to her spouse’s charitable foundation, and if you really think it was just her spouse’s, I have a perpetual motion machine for sale that you might like. She also knew it was illegal. Federal ethics laws require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that have an impact on their family’s business.
    Federal laws prohibit bribes, too.

    I would’ve said it was impossible to make Trump look good by comparison, but Hillary has actually managed to complete that task successfully in the face of overwhelming odds.

    What now, dogs and cats living together?

    Sadly, if the DOJ investigates her for anything now, it will be spun as Trump vindictiveness. So while us normals worry about getting imprisoned for some obtuse government infraction, Hillary ignores the law, enriches herself, and fears not the FBI.

    Ethics? Never heard of it.

  3. Pete sez howdy

    “This was your standard-bearer, liberals.”

    Hmmm. Not so much. There seems to be a need here to define “liberal”. Some would use ‘not supporting HRC’ (because of her apparent corruption and fealty to monied interests) as the real test of whether one is “liberal”. Is it possible the definition of “liberal” has shifted significantly rightward over the last 50 years? Surely HRC is to the ideological right of Eisenhower & Nixon. And Sanders, rather than being “far left,” as many would have him today, would have been an unremarkable, mainstream 1970’s Democrat (and nothing like a “real” socialist.)

    • Decent points.

      Nixon was indeed a social liberal—left of Hillary? I don’t think so. Ike? Be serious.

      Bernie says everyone has a right to a job, a home, health care, a living wage. How much more socialist does he have to be?

      • Pete sez howdy

        Thanks for your response. My threshold for “definitive proof” of the Clintons’ (yes, the pair of them) perfidy was met about 25 years ago.

        The test for socialism is not “Let’s make capitalism nice” (as Bernie might represent), but “Let’s replace Capitalism (which Bernie [presumably] would not touch with a ten-foot pole).

        • Pete sez howdy

          One can interpret one of HRC’s roles as SecState as having been chief salesperson for US armament manufacturers. She (effectively) brokered (or, at least, allowed to happen) arms deals around the globe at unprecedented rates (and was rewarded via Clinton Foundation contributions). The very military industrial complex that Ike so famously warned us of, she shilled for.

        • Bernie wants to take from the producers and pay off the non producers, while the exempt elite make rules for the masses to follow. He wants nationalized industries and no private ownership for the peons.

          How much more socialist can you get?

      • Mrs. Q

        “The Nixon budget is so complex, so unlike the Nixon of the past, so un-Republican that it defies rational analysis…The Nixon budget is more planned, has more welfare in it, and has a bigger predicted deficit than any other budget of this century.”
        -Columnist James Reston 1974

        Even The New Republic referred to Nixon’s “New Federalism” project as “creeping socialism” back in the day.

        I think Pete might have a point Jack.

  4. “Let’s see if the revelation by the Prime Minister makes the headlines in the news shows, the Times and the Post. Let’s see how the Clinton machine tries to spin it.

    You know they will.”

    Let’s also see how quickly left wingers on any discussion groups focusing on this topic transfer the focus onto Trump and Comey…

    That’s what I was gonna say before I noticed Chris already handled that before the echo of the start pistol faded out…

  5. ”May you live in interesting times.”

    A curse dressed up as flattery.

    If that isn’t the Clintons…?

  6. Wayne

    Hillary should have changed her speech mantra during her presidential election campaign to “It’s time for a mobster!” This will certainly get out on FOX News. Too bad Hillary.

  7. Glenn Logan

    And Sanders, rather than being “far left,” as many would have him today, would have been an unremarkable, mainstream 1970’s Democrat (and nothing like a “real” socialist.)

    Heh. Funny. I was there in the 1970’s, and the only person I could think of to the left of Sanders would be Salvadore Allende. Or possibly Leonid Brezhnev.

  8. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    This is proof positive that the Clinton Foundation broke all of the 501(c)(3) laws and was engaged in influence-peddling (a national leader basically confessing to her Parliament about what happened, as opposed to all the other ‘follow the money’ proofs). And that Hillary Clinton broke her oath to the United States — that is, us, the people, not some generalized idea of the United States of America or the President and his administration — when as a Cabinet member she used her influence to obtain money FOR HERSELF from other nations.

    So when will the IRS weigh in and take action? If they do it now, it will become yet another Trump-related issue.

    But because they didn’t weigh in before this, there is also now a clear condemnation of the Obama administration and his Justice Department, which watched this go on under its very nose but did nothing about it — again for purely political reasons. (And no one can convince me that Obama was totally ignorant of the Clinton Foundation’s behavior… he simply ignored it, and picked and chose what Constitutional and legal issues his Justice Department would address. To the nation’s and the Presidency’s detriment.)

    This is no republic. It is a war of special interests, and the ones with the most money and the best advocates win.

  9. So far, I’ve only seen this at the Observer site. It tries to paper it over, calling it “pay to play.” It’s not pay to play when a gift to a family foundation puts the Secretary of State to work for against the interests of thge United States. (because it harms the relationship with the foreign government that now knows our representative is on the take.)

    Why isn’t this story everywhere? It makes me wonder if it’s real—but it all checks out. This is a major story, and a bad one.

  10. Sue Dunim

    Second source? All the articles on Breitbart, Infowars etc all point to the same story in circa.com, an organ of the Sinclair group.

    ” In April 2017, Sinclair announced it had hired Boris Epshteyn, who was briefly the White House assistant communications director for surrogate operations for the Trump administration, and a senior advisor of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, as chief political analyst”

    “On December 16, 2016, Jared Kushner, son-in-law of then-President-elect Donald Trump, stated that it had reached deals with Sinclair to give the company extended access to the Trump campaign, in exchange for airing, without further commentary, interviews with the Republican Party candidate on its stations, which Kushner said had a better reach than cable networks such as CNN.”

    But no matter what the source,the question is, what corrobarative evidence is there? Documentation?

    I don’t see any spin in past artcles. They’ll run any story they feel interests their 18-26 audience.

    From February, there’s this, from a speech to the Awami League by the Bangladeshi prime minister, stating the pressure her son had been under in the US, threatened with an IRS audit etc.

    http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/02/18/pm-joy-face-pressure-us-yunus-issue/

  11. charlesgreen

    Jack, this is troubling.

    Not the bit about Hillary: I won’t argue the point a bit.

    I’m talking about the case of the barking dog. I’m sure you remember the reference from Sherlock Holmes; the point was the dog wasn’t barking at all, when by all reason he should have been.

    On (yet again) arguably the most remarkable day in a unique presidency, you choose to write about the candidate who lost the last election.

    This is an ethics blog: where is the outrage for what is happening at the seat of government today, now?

    Just to highlight a few points.
    1. The AP headlined “Trump Contradicts White House.” Think about that.

    2. Every single White House spokesperson has been proven a liar in the last 48 hours – either by the acting FBI director, or by Herr Trump himself.

    3. Mike Pence has yet again uttered a flat-out lie: only this time, there’s reason to believe he was more than a dupe.

    4. The President himself says “it’s busy around here” as an explanation.

    5. The White House bans US photographers, then allows in Russian photogs, then says ‘oops.’

    6. The President basically admits he had Russia on his mind when he fired Comey. (We are far from shocked).

    7. There are allegations that Trump demanded “loyalty” from the head of the FBI back when (and TexAgg thinks I’m exaggerating when I call that behavior ‘mob-like.’

    This is the biggest story since Watergate (and yes I know there are differences; Nixon was a criminal investigation, etc. – but this is still the biggest story since that one). It is at heart a grave ethical issue. And you’re not covering it!

    I know it’s not from lack of courage; I’ve never known you to pull punches, if anything you lean into them. So I know it’s not that.

    And I’ve seen you stick the knife in conservative positions just as well as (if not as often as) liberal positions. So I know it’s not that either.

    So what is it? This is a massive story. Thus far the GOP is dragging its feet, and the Trump supporters are crossing their fingers. But when you’ve got a few respected GOP senators, the Wall Street Journal, Joe Scarborough, Charles Krauthammer expressing grave doubts– this is way, way past rabid Democrats.

    This looks to me like serious unraveling, and it’s drenched in ethics issues. Your voice, it would seem to me, would contribute considerably to the education of a lot of us, certainly including me.

    • Charlie! How can honestly say that I’ve been ignoring this manufactured “crisis”? I am not obligated to indulge media freakouts and fake outrage all week long. The Clinton story is a real scandal, and the story came to my attention yesterday, so I posted yesterday.

      “It” is not a massive story. The illusion of “unraveling” is entirely media hysteria. And immediately defaulting to accepting that is, sorry, confirmation bias.

      1. The AP headlined “Trump Contradicts White House.” Think about that.

      It’s a clown show, and the spokespeople are incompetent. We knew that. This is a major problem, but nothing new.

      2. Every single White House spokesperson has been proven a liar in the last 48 hours – either by the acting FBI director, or by Herr Trump himself.

      “Herr Trump” is beneath you: if you want to be seen, as you deserve too, as objective, then you shouldn’t engage in “Trump is a Nazi” slurs.

      And See #1 above.

      3. Mike Pence has yet again uttered a flat-out lie: only this time, there’s reason to believe he was more than a dupe.

      I had no idea what this was about until I remembered that you still follow MSNBC.So Pence said that Trump was following the Assistant AG’s recommendation. I’ve dealt with that here. a) You have no idea if Pence thought that, since that was the original story. You don’t know he wa lying. b) So what? As Comey said, he can be fired for any reason. c) What does Pence have to do with Comey?

      4. The President himself says “it’s busy around here” as an explanation.

      Again, so what? He works in chaos. I expected that. This is just more “See? See? What did I tell you?” It has nothing to do with Comey.

      5. The White House bans US photographers, then allows in Russian photogs, then says ‘oops.’

      I presume you understand why a White House being slimed with false Russia narratives didn’t want smiling photos of Trump with Russians to be splashed all over. Yeah, it was dumb to handle it this way. This is a big deal to you? Really?

      6. The President basically admits he had Russia on his mind when he fired Comey. (We are far from shocked).

      I just dealt with this, too. That’s a slanted characterization, and indeed, false. He says he wants the investigation wrapped up. So do I. It is a legitimate concern.

      7. There are allegations that Trump demanded “loyalty” from the head of the FBI back when (and TexAgg thinks I’m exaggerating when I call that behavior ‘mob-like.’

      Also dealt with this, assuming Comey’s characterization is correct, since he’s an honest guy.

      These do not add up to “crisis,” Charlie, and you should consider why you would think they do.

      • Chris

        Charlie! How can honestly say that I’ve been ignoring this manufactured “crisis”?

        I assume because you keep calling it a manufactured crisis, against all available evidence and human reason.

        1. The AP headlined “Trump Contradicts White House.” Think about that.

        It’s a clown show, and the spokespeople are incompetent. We knew that. This is a major problem, but nothing new.

        Jack, if they went out and claimed that Trump fired Comey for certain reasons, and he did not fire Comey for those reasons, than they were lying. We now know this to be the case. “Incompetence” is going to easy. They are incompetent, and they are liars; they are incompetent liars.

        Should we not be concerned with new lies, just because the habit of lying is not new?

        I had no idea what this was about until I remembered that you still follow MSNBC.So Pence said that Trump was following the Assistant AG’s recommendation. I’ve dealt with that here. a) You have no idea if Pence thought that, since that was the original story. You don’t know he wa lying. b) So what? As Comey said, he can be fired for any reason. c) What does Pence have to do with Comey?

        Jesus. a) If Pence really thought that, then he is a dupe rather than a liar. It was still a lie told in service of the president. That matters. b) So what? So what if they lied? How about so what that Trump can fire Comey for any reason? That does not give him or his people license to lie about what the reason was. c) Pence was talking about Comey in the statement. I don’t know how you can ask this question.

        Again, so what? He works in chaos. I expected that. This is just more “See? See? What did I tell you?” It has nothing to do with Comey.

        It goes to ability to handle crises, of which Trump has none. This matters.

        I presume you understand why a White House being slimed with false Russia narratives didn’t want smiling photos of Trump with Russians to be splashed all over. Yeah, it was dumb to handle it this way. This is a big deal to you? Really?

        And I presume you understand why Trump meeting with the Russians a day after he fires the man responsible for the investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia creates the appearance of impropriety. Or, at least, I would have three days ago. Now I’m not surprised to see you look at this situation and once again declare that the media is mostly to blame. Disappointed. But not surprised.

        6. The President basically admits he had Russia on his mind when he fired Comey. (We are far from shocked).

        I just dealt with this, too. That’s a slanted characterization, and indeed, false. He says he wants the investigation wrapped up. So do I. It is a legitimate concern.

        No, Trump literally said he made the decision to fire Comey while thinking about the Russia investigation “hoax.” charles’ characterization is in no way false. That is what Trump said.

        7. There are allegations that Trump demanded “loyalty” from the head of the FBI back when (and TexAgg thinks I’m exaggerating when I call that behavior ‘mob-like.’

        Also dealt with this, assuming Comey’s characterization is correct, since he’s an honest guy.

        These do not add up to “crisis,” Charlie, and you should consider why you would think they do.

        You should consider why you think they don’t.

  12. I tried to make a substantive reply to all the Russia crap again… But it’s exhausting. I don’t understand it. This resurgent commie fever is utterly divorced from reality.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s