If you put your dollar into the vending machine and press the coke button- you get a coke. It is how things are done.
In the HRC world of the Clinton Foundation, you are expected to do the same thing, only the vending machine IS the Foundation, the button you push is Huma Abedin, and the “coke” you get is Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State (and all that brings) and more than likely the next President of the United States. Oh, and the price of that “coke” may vary, but you can be assured it goes up as the position goes up.
Steven Hayes spends a lot of time on FOX news hour just shaking his head in disbelief at the criminal activities of the Clintons and their foundations, and marvels they are still standing. Which I think is a feeling shared by millions upon millions of law abiding citizens across the nation. He writes a column that is illuminating as to the HISTORY of the Clintons being bought off.
As Bill Clinton entered the final year of his presidency, his aides put together a legacy-building trip to South Asia—the first visit to the region by a U.S. president since Jimmy Carter’s in 1978. Early drafts of the itinerary featured a notable exclusion: The president would visit India, an emerging ally, but had no plans to stop in neighboring Pakistan.
There were good reasons for this. Pervez Musharraf had seized power there in a military coup six months earlier. His regime was regarded as tolerant of Islamic radicals, perhaps even complicit in their attacks, and unhelpful on nuclear talks with India. Whatever the potential benefits to regional stability, a visit would be seen as legitimizing a troublemaker. Clinton had the support of many in the foreign policy establishment and his decision was popular among liberals in his party. In an editorial published February 18, 2000, the New York Times noted, “Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington”; the paper urged Clinton to stand firm, absent a return to civilian rule in the country and “concrete progress” on nukes and terror.
Four days later, Hillary Clinton weighed in. At a gathering in a private home on Staten Island, Clinton said she hoped her husband would be able to find time to visit Pakistan on his trip. That she spoke up on a matter of public controversy was interesting; where she did it was noteworthy.
Clinton was the guest of honor at a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser hosted by a group of prominent Pakistani doctors in New York, who acknowledged holding the dinner as part of that lobbying effort. The immediate beneficiary? Hillary Clinton, candidate for U.S. Senate. Organizers were told they’d need to raise at least $50,000 for her to show up. They did. The secondary beneficiary? Pakistan. Two weeks after Clinton told her hosts that she hoped her husband would do what they wanted him to do, the White House announced that Bill Clinton would, indeed, include Pakistan on his trip to South Asia.
Win, win, and win.
The White House naturally insisted that Hillary Clinton’s views had no bearing on her husband’s decision to change his itinerary. And a subsequent New York Times article about the curious sequence of events found “no evidence” she had prevailed upon the president to alter his plans. But that same article, published under the headline “Donating to the First Lady, Hoping the President Notices,” noted the “unique aspect” of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy: “While her husband still occupies the White House, people may seek to influence his policies by making donations to her Senate campaign.”
In fact, people did. The hosts of the event moved it up so that it might take place before a final decision had been made on the South Asian schedule. Suhail Muzaffar, one of two primary organizers of the fundraiser, told the paper: “‘We thought it went very well, in terms of the message and the timeliness of it, especially in terms of the president’s going to the region.” His cohost, Dr. Asim Malik, added: “I cannot deny that the fact that she’s the president’s wife makes a difference.”
And just the beginning of what would be the Clinton Foundation scheme.
Jonah Goldberg also reminds us that chasing the server/email scandal is a welcome distraction for the Clintons. It is not and never has been about the emails or the server, it has been about the convenience of communications that allows for the ability of the Clintons to fleece people, nations and companies of their money by giving it to the Foundation. There are too many PRIVATE and ILLEGAL moving parts to NOT have them all in one place! Goldberg uses an old sleight of hand joke- “look here, not there”- to remind us we need to pay attention to the OTHER hand!
Do you know the old wheelbarrow joke? It’s truly funny only to grandpas and the grandkids they tell it to, so I won’t bother with the elaborate setup. For years a factory worker pushes a wheelbarrow full of straw past a security guard on his way out. Suspicious that the guy is stealing something, the guard looks in the straw but can’t find anything. Finally, when the worker is retiring, the guard asks, “I know you’ve been stealing something — can you tell me what it is?
The guy smiles and says, “Wheelbarrows.”
That joke keeps popping into my head whenever I hear Hillary Clinton’s defenders say there’s no evidence of a quid pro quo in the fresh batch of emails released this week. According to many Republican critics, the trove provides fresh evidence that the Clinton Foundation was, in Donald Trump’s words, a “pay-to-play” scheme, selling access to and favors from the secretary of state.
The Clinton team says there’s no proof of that. Both Clinton and many of her critics can get ahead of the facts, though in opposite directions. But one thing is clear: Clinton lied. That’s not shocking; she’s famous for doing that.
Just last month, Clinton said, “There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.” During her confirmation hearings, members of the Obama administration and Congress extracted assurances from Clinton that there would be a high wall between her State Department and her family’s foundation. It turned out it was more like a turnstile.
But does it make a difference? From the perspective that law and order, and right and wrong, actually do mean something today, I say yes- a hundred times yes!- to the ongoing effort to uncover just how criminally bent Hillary and Bill are.
You see, there is an argument out there that Hillary really doesn’t get what the big deal is here. Oh, she gets WE get it- which is why she shredded, bleached and burnt everything she could. But she can’t grasp why she should not be able to take money, be influenced by foreign governments AND be President. Other than it is illegal, unconstitutional and frankly smells as rank as a dead whale beached on the sand, I don’t see the problem either!
So now the meme is to push the idea that the Foundation MUST survive because of all the tens of millions it helps across the globe!
Well, to that I have several points:
1. Is it really helping? Where’s the real proof? People in Haiti may disagree wholeheartedly on the premise that the Clinton Foundation and its parts are somehow efficiently bringing help to their devastated island. The critical part of any Ponzi scheme is to look like it’s working, as you fleece everyone up and down the line. So yes, the Clinton Foundation gives money away. But how much? And to whom?
2. How efficient is the foundation? In fact just how efficient is the foundation in getting money from here to there? The Clintons insist that this whole thing is no big deal because the Clinton Foundation uses all that money to save lives, and who doesn’t want to save lives? But a writer at the Federalist did a study of the data offered by the Foundation and found them wanting.
“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”
If only that were true. When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it actually goes toward fat salaries, administrative bloat, and lavish travel.
Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.
Now, because the Clintons are Clintons (“It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is…”), their fallback defense will likely be that they didn’t technically run afoul of the law. After all, Hillary didn’t officially take control of the foundation until after she left the State Dept. And the Constitution doesn’t ever say that foreign governments can’t bribe the impeached and disbarred spouses of government officials. Sure, the Constitution says current officials can’t accept dirty cash from foreign government, but it never says that jetset spouses who fly to sex slave islands with convicted sex offenders aren’t allowed to collect under-the-table foreign cash.
That defense makes sense if you think the Founders opposed the practice of foreign governments directly bribing U.S. officials, but wholeheartedly supported the practice of foreign governments indirectly bribing U.S. officials by paying off their spouses. Are we to believe that Hillary was so divorced from the goings-on of the foundation that she was just randomly given official control of it (including having her first name added to the tax-exempt organization’s official name) immediately after leaving the State Department? Are we to believe that poor Hillary just had no clue what was going on at her family’s tax-exempt slush fund?
Oh she knows, and so do all the others in the world who give to the Clintons on the bet she becomes President. (Or better put, we as American voters- knowing how mega corrupt she is- vote her in anyway. Frankly, it says more about us than her that she is even daring to run.)
Apparently, the Federalist writer was challenged by a leftie who took all his information FROM the foundation and reprinted it as a rebuttal of the revelation the Clintons are stealing. To that, the writer responded and the leftie had to cry uncle.
Now, I don’t know why Jacobson didn’t spend any time examining where these “in-house” charitable expenditures actually ended up. I don’t know why he didn’t ask if spending millions on Bill Clinton’s personal library should really count as charity. I don’t know why he didn’t dig in and see if flying on private jets and eating fancy meals with celebrities were activities that are truly charitable in nature. After all, that’s where a huge chunk of this “in-house” charity money actually went.
It could be that he lacks the basic capacity to read and analyze a simple financial statement. It could be that he viewed highly compensated Clinton payroll employees (charity beneficiaries according to Jacobson’s analysis) as independent arbiters of what constitutes charity and what constitutes lily-gilding tax-exempt excess. It could be that he didn’t care at all about the actual, demonstrable facts and was instead far more interested in defending the Clintons, no matter the cost. Fortunately, Jacobson gives us a hint as to his intent.
According to Jacobson, the notion that all non-charitable grant money must be considered as “in-house” charity expenditures “depends on trusting the Clinton foundation’s characterization of its expenditures.” You don’t say. Well, luckily for us, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t have any history at all of deliberately mischaracterizing its financial information or deliberately hiding the source of millions of dollars worth of foreign donations.
So what we have from Jacobson is not a fact check, but an implication check. He likes the implications of agreeing with people on the Clinton payroll, so he trusts them, even when actual facts, history, and common sense contradict their assertions. Jacobson does not like the implications of facts that show the Clintons and their allies in a poor light, so he declares them to be false.
This is not journalism. This is not fact-checking. This is pathetic demagoguery, and a remarkably unimpressive display of it at that.
“Let me stop you at ‘while technically true,’” I told Jacobson via e-mail, “because that’s really the only standard that matters when judging whether something is true or not. Whether you happen to like a fact is irrelevant to whether it’s true. So when you tell me that the truth of a statement is not the primary factor in determining whether something is true [or] not (“I don’t expect it to be a full True”), it tells me that you have an agenda that’s separate from determining whether something is true. That’s disappointing.”
It’s also vintage PunditFact.
[UPDATE: Phil Kerpen notes on Twitter that PunditFact and PolitiFact are funded by a large and active Clinton Foundation donor and partner, a fact PunditFact conveniently failed to disclose in its defense of the Clinton Foundation.]
As long as there is a free Internet and people willing to do the work, all of us have a chance to at least debate the issues. Are the Clintons corrupt? Yes. Do they hide evidence of it? Yes, have been for years. They are so corrupt they have actually warped the perception of what is corrupt. The other day, I was reading an article and saw a short video of Eleanor Clift saying just that.
Clift said, “Equating what Donald Trump has done, in inciting potential violence in this country, talking casually Second Amendment people, accusing the president of being — and Hillary Clinton of being co-founders of ISIS, what Clinton has — what the emails, — that is garden-variety political influence –.”
3. Why isn’t anyone on the Left upset as the rest of us? Or how deep does this corruption go? Now, we can go through the exercise “What if George Bush received money from a foreign company that wanted to sell guns to our military at a great profit, what would the media say?” We could, but we won’t. Because we know the Left has successfully infiltrated the media. They know she’s corrupt, but she’s paying them too, so it’s all good.
My question to Clift would be two fold; what does she consider other examples of garden variety political influence, and what would be her threshold they would need to pass through before she was offended?
Steven Hayes points out several that SHOULD offend Clift and ends with the cover-up.
While the FBI recovered thousands of work-related emails that Clinton failed to turn over, Comey reported that many others had been deleted. The FBI director acknowledged that while the FBI did not have “complete visibility” as to the contents of these emails or a thorough understanding of how they were permanently erased, he nonetheless offered his assurances that “there was no intentional misconduct” in the sorting of the emails.
If Comey’s explanations seemed generous when he made them, they seem even more charitable today. In his telling, Clinton’s failure to turn over thousands of work-related emails—at least some of which include evidence of coordination between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department that Clinton World was eager to keep secret—was merely the result of incompetence or bad luck. And the efforts her lawyers undertook to delete the others were unremarkable, benign. “We found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them,” Comey said at his press conference. Yet moments later, Comey acknowledged: “They deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”
There may be a simple reason the FBI didn’t find evidence of intent: They didn’t ask. That’s the explanation Representative Trey Gowdy offered in an interview with Fox News on August 24. “I didn’t see any questions on the issue of intent,” Gowdy said, referring to the FBI’s notes from its interview with Secretary Clinton.
And the evidence the FBI collected, particularly with respect to how some of Clinton’s “personal” emails were deleted, indicates that questions about intent ought to have been among the first ones asked. FBI interviews with the techs responsible for erasing Clinton’s emails suggest that her team went to great lengths to ensure the messages would never be seen again. The Clinton team used a technology called “BleachBit” to permanently delete those emails. BleachBit, according to its website, allows users to “shred files to hide their contents and prevent data recovery” and “overwrite free disk space to hide previously deleted files.” The techs used additional tools to ensure those emails would be unrecoverable.
So Clinton, who took virtually no precautions to safeguard her emails—”personal” or “work-related”—while they sat on her server, went to great lengths to ensure that the emails she withheld from the State Department could never again be seen by anyone. She did this nearly two years following her departure from the State Department and only after she understood that the government was interested in seeing her emails. Seems like a lot to do to protect yoga schedules and emails about the grandkids.
The challenge for Clinton is simple: survive until November 8. So she’s avoiding the media—265 days and counting since her last press conference—and trying to offer reassurances about the Clinton Foundation.
There’s little reason to believe her. This is the same woman, after all, who promised during her nomination hearing seven years ago that she would take extraordinary measures to separate the foundation from her work at the State Department and do her best to “avoid even the appearance of a conflict.”
Hell, son… she didn’t even try.
And Charles Krauthammer tells us why.
The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s e-mails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it. That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions — demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth. But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn’t classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn’t convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding? Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she did 30,000 e-mails — at will. But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even taking office. It’s clear what she wanted to protect from scrutiny: Clinton Foundation business.
The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity, and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration.
The Clinton Restoration. It was and is and will always be about them.