Friday, August 26, 2016


4 experts make the case that the Clinton  Foundation’s fundraising was troubling
“The idea that you have foreign governments ... heavily involved in financing an institution that’s this tied to the secretary of state’s family — well, that appears to be something new.
”  Was it just access? or did the hostile governments get a quid pro quo?

We don't yet have a smoking gun or blue dress. But the Clintons are infamous not just for their high crimes, but a pattern of cover-ups and dog-wagging.
The Clinton Foundation is closely tied to Bill, a former president and governor, Hill, a former senator and secstate and heir apparent to the presidency. Further they (more so Bill) have a reputation as being on the take and on the make. "Foreign" comes from rule by foes. I seem to recall a little scandal when Billy Carter was on the payroll of a middle eastern country, although he didn't really do much of anything in that capacity. 
Hillary has some history of taking money from shady sources in Arkansas. The foundation finance situation greatly eclipses that. 
If a blue dress type bit of evidence shows up, proving a quid pro quo and that Hillary has been acting as an unregistered foreign agent, that gets into the area of impeachable offenses, except that historically you can't get impeached for the money you steal to get elected, only the bribes you take after election. Not sure why that would be the case, actually.
Is Hillary a Machurian candidate? I wonder if Drudge has anything on this.

lead story at drudge is about dog-wagging, but has little substance.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/aiding-and-abedin/article/2004014 clever headline

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?