Bill Clinton Claims No Shred of Evidence in Clinton Cash
In response to my article The War on Poverty to Blame for Problems in Baltimore, a reader left a link in the comment section pointing to a study which showed that Politics wrecks your ability to do math - that is, highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more — not less — susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability. I believe that is very true, and I believe even more: politics puts blinders on as well.
Otherwise how can we explain the fact that Liberals support Hillary Clinton, the most criminal, corrupt, unqualified and deceptive candidate for President in our history, with the possible exception of Barack Obama.
My readers are no doubt familiar with the latest Hillary scandal as outlined in the book Clinton Cash, in which her husband is a co-conspirator as well:
ANI News, 19 May 2015, No shred of evidence to support charge of influence peddling by Clinton Foundation, says Bill Clinton
In a free-wheeling interview with CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour, Clinton, referring indirectly to Peter Schweizer's bombshell of a book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
, said there was not an iota of evidence to suggest or believe that the Clinton Foundation was guilty of influence peddling.
When Amanpour asked him about the book suggesting that there may have been quid pro quos or inappropriate influence peddling regarding foreign donations, foreign government donations to The Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton emphatically said, "People, they understand that an enormous percentage of health and development work around the world is funded by governments and multinational organizations, and they fund us, because they think we're good at solving problems and taking care of-taking advantage of opportunities."
"But, we also have 300,000 other donors and 90 percent of them give USD 100 or less. So, there's just no evidence-even the guy that wrote the book, apparently, had to admit under questioning that he didn't have a shred of evidence for this. He just sort of thought he'd throw it out there and see if it would fly," the former president added.
Well, I suppose Slick Willy feels quite confident that he can deny any influence-peddling since Hillary destroyed thousands of emails that might have shown direct evidence of wrong-doing.
Luckily for the rest of us, very convincing circumstantial evidence still exists: for example, during the 2008 Presidential campaign Hillary Clinton opposed a free trade deal with Colombia. In the spring of 2010 Frank Giustra, a Canadian business executive in the mining business went on a trip to Columbia with Bill Clinton ostensibly to review the philanthropic efforts of the Clinton Foundation in the mining areas of Columbia. A month later Giustra donates millions to the Clinton scam Foundation. Then, coincidentally, sometime during Hillary's reign as Secretary of State (2009-2013) she magically reverses her position and comes to support the deal (1).
And again, while she was secretary of state, Dow Corning lobbied the Department of State to ease trade barriers with China. One may ask, "What's wrong with that? Lots of companies lobby the Department of State." But somehow I think it has a bad smell when that very same company during her reign also donates to the Clinton Foundation and later gives a cash payoff directly, personally to Hillary Clinton (2).
It would be easy to catalog hundreds of payoffs and bribes the Clintons have received over the years, but to what purpose? Those who have no blinders on know that she will not get indicted by the progressive stooges who now run the Justice Department, and Liberals, you know, those who do have blinders on, cannot connect the dots, and therefor see no evil.
ENDNOTES
(1):
Power Line, 24 Apr 2015, Clinton cash — “not a shred of evidence”?
Assume the following facts, which have been publicly reported, at least some of which are not disputed: (1) As a candidate for president Hillary Clinton opposed a free trade deal with Colombia, (2) as Secretary of State she supported such a deal, (3) in the interim, Frank Giustra made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and (4) Giustra’s interests benefited from the agreement Clinton supported.
(2):
Vox Media, 16 May 2015, Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her
During Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family's foundation. And last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.
In the laundry whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it's the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn't go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.
The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different from the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions.
