Bill Clinton doubled the amount of money he earned from speaking engagements funded by foreign entities while his wife served as secretary of state. The government of Norway donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation and was rewarded when the State Department shelled out $177.9 million for a new embassy in Oslo in 2011. The agency built the complex over the objections of diplomatic officials in Norway, who suggested the money be spent to strengthen embassies and consulates in countries that faced a higher terror risk.
I checked it out, and yes, it's true. Not only that, it's part of a definite pattern: the Clintons milked Hillary's job at the State Department into as many dollars as they could get from foreign entities. Has there ever been a Secretary of State remotely as corrupt?
Why hasn't more been made of this? I've seen the quid pro quo Clinton foundation mentioned in a few places (I hadn't known about the Norwegian embassy until the commenter pointed it out). But the story seems to have no legs.
To me, this is far worse than Hillary's email scandal, which seems to be mostly about the coverup. (Not that that's not bad enough.) This State Department favoritism for Clinton Initiative donors was outright bribery. Whether or not it's strictly legal is not the point. (And that would depend on what the definition of "is" is, anyway.)
The point is, it doesn't pass the smell test. And the fact that the media just let the story die stinks just as badly.
Posts
11 comments:
The US Constitution generally prohibits our government officials from accepting something of value from a foreign state, but I don't know that Congress ever enacted penalties for violating the Constitution's "No Emoluments Clause":
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Mark --
Thank you for clarifying that. What the Clintons are doing, in spirit, is certainly illegal. Whether or not they have a thin legal out based on the contributions being tot the foundation, and not them directly, is questionable. But the quid pro quo nature of the donations being followed by State Department expenditures is unmistakeable. It's an outrage.
The Clintons say -- note the careful wording -- they derive NO PERSONAL INCOME from the millions they rake in from speaking fees, leaving the impression the money goes to their charitable foundation to rescue the starving Haitians. However, if the money went to a private corporation controlled by the Clintons, then they could also legitimately say they derive no personal income from the fees.
According to The Washington Post, the University of Missouri at Kansas City paid Chelsea Clinton $65,000 plus expenses to give a ten-minute speech and answer questions. "The university paid the fee [...] to the Harry Walker Agency. But [university spokesman John] Martellaro said, 'We have no knowledge of how funds were disbursed from that point.'"
"A college books Chelsea for $65,000"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-college-balks-at-hillary-clintons-fee-so-books-chelsea-for-65000-instead/2015/06/29/b1918e42-1e78-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html
Mark --
It's all sickening. The foundation pays for a lot of the Clinton's personal expenses, such as travel, hotels, and other things. And they use the foundation to steer business to cronies,. It's all a very cozy arrangement, and the best part is, it saves them from having to pay taxes on any of their speaking fees etc.
And yes, the idea of getting Chelsea because Hillary was unavailable is ridiculous. What exactly has Chelsea accomplished in her life that makes her worth $65,000 an hour? It's mind-boggling.
For as long as Bill and Hillary Clinton have been in the public eye, they've proven that they're corrupt, having been involved in quite a few scandals. I've come to suspect that Hillary Clinton has the same disorder that her husband has. In her case, she lacks the charming personality. Apparently, their daughter is learning the "tricks of the trade," her parents teaching her how to operate in life (at the expense of your soul).
- Susan
Susan --
I'm starting to wonder about that. Bill is a classic sociopath, with the charming personality and slickness that come with that territory. Hillary is also dishonest but doesn't have the sort of natural charisma that a lot of sociopaths have. She also doesn't come from th dysfunctional background that Bill does; sometimes think her dishonesty was sort of learned at Bill's feet, it almost seems to be an acquired dishonesty: she saw it worked for Bill, so she's trying it on for size. Either way, she's certainly a liar though.
Yes, Chelsea too is a nightmare, though of exactly which stripe I haven't figured out yet. She acts incredibly entitled, that's for sure.
Read up about Hillary's mother - the woman had a rough upbringing, totally dysfunctional parents. I'm wondering about how Hillary's own mother parented Hillary. Hillary's mother grew up with what seems to me were unloving parents. How do unloving parents affect their children?
- Susan
Susan --
Hadn't know that about Hillary's mother. Usually unloving parents are a prescription for a narcissistic child, if not worse. And that skin of ting does tend to pass itself down from one generation to the next.
Actually, I am more bothered by the insistence that there was no quid pro quo. Some third world big shot CEO dumps a pile of money on the Clinton's to look like a big man and possibly get a favor instead of giving his truck drivers, welders or secretaries a bonus. Finally, the truck drivers scraping by have to hear about how the Clinton's didn't do anything for that money and they are proud of that. The UMKC story is crazy as well and yes, some of the faculty wasn't too happy about it.
John, you're kinda isolated on this site.
It would be good if Ron Unz could bring you over to his "supersite" to get more of an audience.
He might even throw a few pennies your way. He's one of them there rich fellers.
Rifleman --
Thank you very much for that suggestion. The truth is, I'm kinda isolated in my thinking. I agree with the people on the site about a lot of things, most significantly racial issues, but I'm also in favor of gay marriage and a few other things they're not. And if anybody wants to discredit me, all they have to do is point out an older post of mine in which I made the case for the existence of sasquatch, and say, see? He's crazy. Plus, Unz's writers tend to be more serious intellectuals than I am, and usually write long, analytical pieces, whereas I'm more inclined to write shorter, impressionistic pieces. Plus I like to write about whatever interests me, and a lot of that is stuff of much less importance, like competitive swimming, or looks, or TV shows, or even fashion, which I like to make fun of from time to time.
But thank you.
Post a Comment