Hillary Clinton was engaged in a long and lucrative influence peddling scam known as the Clinton Foundation. It was a a brilliant, technically legal way to fund the family’s international travel, perks, and opportunity to set up lucrative deals for the family while pursuing other interests, but its was as corrupt as Rasputin’s beard was long.
The proof is in the chart above, unless you have been hit over the head with a skillet. Why would the Foundation’s donations dry up once the two senior Clintons were out of power and without prospects of regaining a measure of it? Three guesses, and the first two don’t count. Donations reached $134 million in 2010, right after Hillary became secretary of state, and stayed in that range through 2016. When she lost the election, support crashed, going from $217 million in 2016 to $26 million in 2017. The foundation fired 22 staffers and shuttered the Clinton Global Initiative.
There’s no mystery about what the Clintons were pulling. I teach a course every year on foundation ethics, and often discussed what a general counsel’s duties were once one discovered that their charity or non-profit was using the non-profit tax laws this way. Nobody can argue it isn’t clever, though its not really unique: a lot of non-profits use the illusion of good works—just enough to meet legal requirements—to essentially launder funds. In this case, the foundation let foreign nations and others bribe the Clintons while getting a tax deduction. Sweet!
The Washington Post described the Justice Department investigation of the foundation as an effort to “mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton” about “vague corruption allegations.” Fake news. There’s been nothing vague about the accusations. I wrote about the foundation’s corruption many times, like here, in 2015, and here, in 2016, or here.
I wasn’t the only one, but time, boot-licking fealty by the news media, and shamefully gullible and ignorant progressives, plus perhaps an friendly Justice Department which has bailed out Hillary in the past, have provided comfy cover. Nonetheless, the chart doesn’t lie.
When Hillary Clinton took the job of Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, she promised Congress that the foundation wouldn’t accept foreign donations during her tenure. That was a lie. It took in money from at least seven foreign governments, sometimes using the dodge of a Canadian shadow foundation which was technically a separate entity. Thus her promise depended on what the definition of “Clinton Foundation” is. The Clintos are nothing if not consistant.
Documents show that 85 of the 154 private interests who met with Clinton at the State Department had donated money to the foundation, and emails—even the ones that Hillary didn’t destroy from Puff, her Magic Server, showed that Clinton’s top aide and gal pal, Huma Abedin, who coincidentally worked for both the State Department and the foundation, gave “special expedited access to the Secretary of State” for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million.
This is known as quid pro quo.
The Peter Schweizer book “Clinton Cash” delved into the links between between the foundation, government policy, and the Clintons’ financial welfare. Naturally, it was dismissed by the news media as a partisan hit job.
Look at the chart again.
I don’t want to see Hillary in jail; her anger, humiliation and sick determination to display both in public until she drops is a far more appropriate punishment. I do, however, resent insults to my intelligence, and those claiming that Hillary was exonerated also think O.J. wasn’t guilty.
The chart says it all.
Source: Issues and Insights