|A Brewing, Multi-Million Dollar Scandal|
|By Jerry E. Clark|
April 21, 2015 -
No matter where you find yourself on the political spectrum, there are some items involving individuals in public life upon which we all may agree. One of these is guarding against the appearance of impropriety. Yet another is clear evidence that you're involved with the acquisition of money from individuals or other entities that may affect your public decision-making behavior.
On the first score, there is ample evidence that Hillary Clinton has failed --and failed miserably-- to avoid the appearance of impropriety in a number of cases. Wiping clean a private computer server when there are publicly-owned emails on it smacks of gross negligence, if not outright obstruction of justice.
You may claim that Mrs. Clinton was protecting her privacy by taking this action - in her words, avoiding public disclosure of such items as her daughter Chelsea's wedding details, etc. - or that since she owned the computer server, she had the right to do anything she wished at any time with it. The problem with this is that while Secretary of State, she had the obligation to obey the rules all public employees must obey and she clearly did not do so. Wiping the server clean looks like obvious hiding of email or other communications that the public has the right to see and is a requirement of public service. The Secretary of State is not granted any such exception and Mrs. Clinton clearly knew this was the case, having knowledge of subpoenas from Congress on this score.
But let's now move to the Clinton Foundation and its connection with Mrs. Clinton. Her name is part of the foundation's formal name. The foundation collected tens of millions of dollars in foreign donations while she was Secretary of State. During her tenure as Secretary of State there were many decisions that could (and some would say, DID) have been swayed by these donations. Despite the fact that she allegedly promised the Obama administration that such donations wouldn't be accepted during her tenure, they clearly were accepted.
Amazingly enough, her husband's speaking fees were dramatically raised during her tenure, too - a clear signal that funneling money to the Clintons in this manner was yet another way to make the power of foreign cash felt. It's clear to almost everybody that although the Clinton Foundation did provide funding for several notable and worthy causes, it also provided what the principals thought was a legal way to collect millions to fund the future political ambitions of Mrs. Clinton. The travel budget of tens of millions indicates just one way this was accomplished.
An upcoming book (set for distribution in May) will detail the connections between the acceptance of cash by the Clinton Foundation and the public behavior of one of its principals - namely Hillary Clinton.
The Washington Post and New York Times, not known for the promotion of right wing conspiracies, have questioned the behavior of the former Secretary of State. Right now, she and her spokespeople are avoiding the serious questions. But that won't last long.
Stay tuned for some fireworks in mid-May, the likes of which the American public hasn't seen in a couple of years.