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
Ethics Alarms 
Perhaps a gofundme page to tide them over?
Whenever someone slobbers cluelessly about the high ratings/good works the Clintonista Slush Fund performs, I sheepishly suggest they consult the HAITIANS.
Indeed.
That fiasco, more than any other, showed exactly how corrupt The Clinton Foundation was. Well worth the time to research where the money went, and what was promised versus what was delivered
I was quite certain OJ was guilty too.
South park created an episode in 2001 called “Butters Very own episode”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butters%27_Very_Own_Episode
In the episode, Butter’s (one of the secondary kid characters) mother tried to murder him by rolling her car in a lake. He escapes but his mother thinks he’s dead. His parents concoct a story about a Puerto Rican committing the murder to deflect police attention. They are joined by Gary Condit, the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, and OJ Simpson as those “falsely accused of murder.”
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/5/59/Celebrities_smiles.png/revision/latest?cb=20110723180842
At the time, we all “knew” that Condit, Ramsey and Simpson were guilty. Since then Condit and the Ramsey’s have been exonerated by DNA evidence. I recently saw a re-run of the episode and it makes one feel awkward to see the portrayal of everyone “knowing” that they were guilty, yet two of the three have been cleared. At the time, we never would presume that any of them would have been cleared and it does cause some pause about Simpson.
That said, neither the Ramsey’s or Condit have gone on to commit additional crimes.
Condit and the Ramseys behaved suspiciously, but there was no way to know they were guilty. The comparison with OJ is not apt. All the evidence pointed to OJ’s guilt. All of it. I watched the whole trial_–he was guilty beyond, not just reasonable doubt, but any doubt. The fact that the lead investigator was a liar and a racist? It doesn’t matter: he couldn’t have planted all that blood. The DNA evidence was conclusive, but Barry Scheck did his usual job confusing the jury. The prosecution was outgunned, and made botch after botch…and an incompetent judge let them get away with many unethical ploys. A mistrial should have been called at least three times, maybe more. Arguing OJ is innocent is even worse that claiming that we don’t “know” Barry Bonds used steroids..and that’s inexcusable.
“Puff the Magic Server”…wasting good Scotch blowing it through my nose. I put a plastic cover over my keyboard for occasions like this.
Well thank you. I try to keep the prose diverting.
I may steal both of those brilliant bits of prose, dd, and Jack
With and without attribution (just like the Clintons)
/sn
No problem here, slick.
The news I read only referred to Hilary’s emails, the implication being that after investigation no materially damaging leaks had been discovered (?). I thought from the previous hysterical criticism that she must have inadvertently disclosed State secrets.
I don’t know where you got THAT impression. That she mishandled multiple classified documents, and deliberately too, is a matter of record. The investigation (yet to be completed) involved quid pro quo issues involving the Russian energy company, speaking fees, and Clinton Foundation donations.
“The state department has completed its years-long internal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email and found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information”.
The Guardian, 19 October 2019
What, please, am I missing?
What’s the Guardian missing? Maybe the use of “systemic”? I don’t know: the Justice Department and FBI found “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.”
Since then, more classified emails mis-handled by Clinton have been identified. If the State Dept.somehow proved the FBI was wrong, that would have been huge news, and Clinton would have never shut up about it.
The mere fact that if I was to expose obsolete facts regarding military systems no longer in use anywhere in the world, I am subject to decades of jail time, is all I need to know that Hillary should be in jail.
She took the same oath I did.
She is subject to the same laws, draconian as they are, as I am.
‘Not meaning to’ break those laws specifically is not a defense, so stated in those laws.
There are many examples of the ‘serfs*’ being prosecuted for exactly the same violations Hillary admits to. Comey admits to. Brennan. McCabe. Rosenstein…
Two tiers of justice blatantly enacted cannot survive in our culture. They will have to take our guns, our livelihoods, and eventually our lives to prevent an uprising. Hillary’s exoneration opened many eyes; the special treatment Swamp dwellers have gotten (Jussie Smollett, anyone?) has made it clear to fly over country the the Hunger Games political system was prophetic, and a goal of our betters.
*Definition: not a member of the wealthy Elite wanna-be aristocrats, journalists, and entertainers and all now generally defined as The Swamp.
To prove the point, we have this story:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-treasury-official-who-leaked-confidential-trump-team-banking-records-pleads-guilty?itm_source=parsely-api?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=011520-news&utm_campaign=position7
Someone who BROKE THE LAW FOR A YEAR by exposing Trump related federal financial documents to the media will likely get little or no jail time.
“Edwards was a senior adviser at Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, also known as FinCEN.”
“…prosecutors believed 41-year-old Natalie Edwards began obtaining the sensitive information in October 2017 and continued for one year. She would send the information she received to a BuzzFeed News reporter. The outlet published multiple articles based on the leaked information.”
“…When she was arrested in October 2018 “she was carrying a government-issued USB flash drive containing not only thousands of SARs… She also had on that USB “highly sensitive material relating to Russia, Iran, and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL, otherwise known as ISIS],” prosecutors said…”
We also have this going for us: “Prosecutors said it did not appear as though Edwards had any legitimate job-related reason to have that information…”
Ya think?
And here we have the kicker…
“Edwards faced up to five years in prison for the charge of conspiracy for leaking the bank records, but her plea deal will result in a sentence of zero to six months in prison.
Oh no, there are not two tiers of justice AT ALL. If someone leaked, say, Clinton or Obama bank records, do you think they would EVER see daylight again?
Common Americans are awake. This sort of thing is being shared between people, going around a news media who will not report on the corruption and cover up involving any fellow travelers.
If we, as a nation, do not remove the Democrat Party from power for a generation, we deserve the eventual death camps socialism always results in.
Progressives eat their own. Sitting on the sideline will not protect anyone, should some future whim mean they want your property, for instance, or simply dislike your skin color.
You know this is true in your heart. Ignoring the monster that has grown in our midst is an existential threat to your freedoms, your livelihood, and the lives of you and your family.
Progressive hate. It is what they do. It is their means to power.
Act accordingly.
Sorry for the triple post, but the hits just keep rolling…
“…the eventual death camps socialism always results in.
And…… here we have a Bernie staffer advocating for that, and much, much more. Some choice quotes (read the article, it has much more about how the left sees normal Americans) that speak for themselves
Re education Camps:
I mean, we gotta try, so like, in Nazi Germany after the fall of the Nazi party there was a s**t ton of the populace that was f***ing Nazified. Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their f***ing people to not be Nazis. Like, we’re probably going to have to do the same f***ing thing here. That’s kind of what Bernie’s whole f***ing like, ‘hey, free education for everybody!’ because we’re going to have to teach you to not be a f***ing Nazi.”
“There’s a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags, right? And actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags, they had conjugal visits in gulags, gulags were actually meant for like re-education.”
See? The death camps (read up on gulags) were simply there for the people socialists sent to them, to show them rightthink.
What to do about those who oppose you politically (I suppose before you set up the camps?)
“Well, I’ll tell you what, in Cuba, what did they do to reactionaries?…”
“Whatever it takes, and that’s why they’re like ‘oh, anti-fascists are violent,’ it’s because we’re willing to go about and beyond what the law says is acceptable, like oh free speech, yeah like they try to be like ‘oh you’re against free speech’ and no, we’re not against free speech, we’re against f***ing hate speech… then you should expect a f***ing violent reaction and you deserve a violent reaction because that’s just not an acceptable thing.”
I will stop there.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-bernie-staffer-kill-political-opponents-burn-people-in-streets-cops-to-be-beaten-if-bernie-loses?itm_source=parsely-api?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=011520-news&utm_campaign=position2
This is what they have done time and again in countries they gain power over. Progressives want their opponents dead. I believe them.
Do you wonder why?
Thanks. I had Comey’s 2016 statement.
State Department’s recent words, “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information” are sufficient for me.
I didn’t know there was yet a further ongoing investigation ‘yet to be completed’ into the Clinton Foundation. I’ll try to keep a look out for it. When will it report and to whom?
They can’t be sufficient—that statement refers to State Department policy breaches on a Department level.All it means is that Clinton’ defiance of State Department policies was on her, not State. It’s a CYA report, and that’s all it is.
I’m looking for the Clinton Foundation verdict. It’s very likely that they won’t find broken laws.
Jack. Not sure your interpretation of the graph is fair, although it is certainly thought provoking. Apparently the pattern you point out is quite common on charitable funds that carry ‘names’. Donations increase as the ‘name’ prospers and declines as the ‘name’ withers. Nothing particularly unusual with the graph for the Clinton Foundation, or so I am told.
I suspect there is a whiff of corruption in many such arrangements. The donor may contribute more to the ‘Marshall fund for stray dogs’ after you’ve won your Pulitzer, because he thinks you have more power to assist him. Or maybe it is just because there will be more prestige in displaying the hand signed Christmas card you will send to all your top donors. And from your point of view it is the dogs who are gaining so you are in the clear?
But the thought provoking ethical twist is that you may have allowed the donor to think he is bribing you to favour him in some corrupt way, even when you have no intention of doing so. The intentions of the corrupt donor are confounded, so no sympathy for him. But arguably you have cheated the donor. But again, it is the innocent dogs who gain, so does that make it all ok?
I don’t know whether Hilary Clinton was running a corrupt scheme, or whether if corrupt it was more corrupt than has been general in US politics. As a distant foreigner I am however still bemused by the continuation of ‘lock her up’ cries when there is so much current lying and corruption more readily to hand.