No evidence of Clinton wrongdoing? Sure there is. Lots of it.

By 85 Comments 3,118 views

clinton corruption

I was reading an article by Eleanor Clift in The Beast this morning in which she starts out by writing about Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash. From that article:

It’s a mistake for the Clinton campaign to write off conservative author Peter Schweizer as a right-wing hack. It won’t work, and it’s not true. If he were as off-base as the campaign and its allies portray him, would a high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him? And would Common Cause, the gold standard for good-government groups, which is currently chaired by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, be calling for an independent review that would be made public of all large donations to the Clinton Foundation?

She accurately describes the classic Clinton response to the story:

The Clintons have a standard template for pushing back, and they’re going to use it to make questions about their finances seem part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, but character assassination only goes so far. It may work for a while, but if the data in Schweizer’s upcoming book, Clinton Cash, survives the vetting it will get from the mainstream media, Clinton will have to clean up her act. Aside from actual wrongdoing, and there’s no evidence of that, this is about the appearance of conflicts of interest, and in politics, appearances are everything.

But then she goes into Clinton Protection Mode and makes this assertion:

While no one is alleging illegality, there are legitimate questions about appearances that if Clinton does not adequately address will have the effect of further weakening citizens’ faith in their government, and in her capacity as a leader.

We’re seeing this over and over and over. “There is no proof they did anything wrong.”

Yes there is. There’s plenty of proof.

1. Hillary violated the agreement she made with the Obama administration.

The Clinton Foundation admitted Thursday that a 2010 donation from the Algerian government was not properly approved under the guidelines the Obama administration put in place with the foundation when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009.

The “unsolicited” $500,000 donation was made by the Embassy of Algeria “immediately following the devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12, 2010,” the Clinton foundation said in an unsigned statement.

“As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for earthquake relief, the entire amount of Algeria’s contribution was distributed as aid in Haiti,” the statement said. “This donation was disclosed publicly on the Clinton Foundation website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed.”

In 2008, before Hillary Clinton became Obama’s secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation and the Obama administration signed an agreement that outlined how the foundation would deal with conflict of interest questions but still be allowed to continue its philanthropic work.

2. The Clinton Foundation filed false IRS returns:

The Clinton Foundation’s acting chief executive admitted on Sunday that the charity had made mistakes on how it listed government donors on its tax returns and said it was working to make sure it does not happen in the future.

The non-profit foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence.

After a Reuters review found errors in how the foundation reported government donors on its taxes, the charity said last week it would refile at least five annual tax returns.

“So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future,” Clinton Foundation acting Chief Executive Officer Maura Pally said in a statement.

One year, maybe two, is a mistake. Five is a cover-up.

3. The Clinton Foundation took millions of dollars in donations from foreign nations while Hillary eas Secretary of State:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

This is, at the bare minimum, a conflict of interest. Many believe it’s far more than that.

4. More than anything else, the Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for the Clintons:

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

5. The Clinton Foundation will continue to take foreign money while Hillary campaigns for President:

The board of the Clinton Foundation said Wednesday night that it will continue accepting donations from foreign governments, but only from six nations, a move that appears aimed at insulating Hillary Rodham Clinton from controversies over the charity’s reliance on millions of dollars from abroad as she ramps up her presidential campaign.

Clinton, who resigned from the foundation’s board last week, has faced mounting criticism over the charity’s ties to foreign governments.

There is no escape from the conflict of interest.

6. It is virtually certain that she violated the Federal Records Act:

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Conveniently, Hillary destroyed the emails on her private server and won’t allow anyone to examine it. Now at least we know why she destroyed it.

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, New York State law stipulates that any speaking fees Bill Clinton accepts are also Hillary’s fees as well. That means she did indeed profit from her decisions.

And here’s something critical: Bill Clinton pumped up Nazarbayev despite his record of alleged human rights violations and rigged elections. That set the stage for the approval of the deal. The Russians wanted to buy Uranium One and needed State Department approval. They got that approval, after tens of millions were donated to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One’s major shareholders.

The Clinton Foundation did not report those donations.

Mistake my ass.

In what can only be described as an outburst of galactic hypocrisy, Hillary promises to get unaccountable money out of politics.

The Clintons are as corrupt as can be imagined. We’ll be visiting the Clinton Foundation taking money from countries who abuse women and hang gays later. When they tell you there’s no smoking gun, remember that John Allen Muhammad was convicted on less. There was no “direct evidence” he killed anyone either.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

85 Responses to “No evidence of Clinton wrongdoing? Sure there is. Lots of it.”

  1. 51

    Greg

    @Bill:

    The scandals and corruption are history, as in historic record.

    Most people require evidence before they’ll believe claims from sources that never seem to come up with any. Those who listen to nothing but right-wing propaganda outlets tend to forget that. They think think wrongdoing has been established in connection with Benghazi, the IRS, Clinton’s e-mail server, etc. No such thing has actually happened.

    What has happened is that republicans have expended huge amounts of time and public money on a series of politically motivated fishing expeditions that have come up with nothing, while totally ignoring the business of the nation that they were elected to do and are paid to be doing. By the time 2016 rolls around, they’ll have a 6 year resume with nothing constructive on it, and a prior record that includes major foreign policy miscalculations and a crashed economy.

    Lots of luck with that.

  2. 52

    retire05

    @Greg:

    What has happened is that republicans have expended huge amounts of time and public money on a series of politically motivated fishing expeditions that have come up with nothing,

    Yeah, because everyone knows that the New York Times and the Washington Post that have been reporting on the Clinton Foundation scandal are such right wingers.

    Please, continue proving you’re an idiot.

  3. 53

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Most people require evidence before they’ll believe claims from sources that never seem to come up with any.

    No, your problem is that you only listen to LEFT wing propaganda sources and they cover up the evidence (which is ample). But, you just spread your cheeks and put your head right back up where it belongs and everything will just be OK.

    What has been absolutely and beyond any doubt is that Hillary ignored requests for added security or to be pulled out of Benghazi altogether. Why did she ignore those warnings and requests? Even more interesting, why did she LIE about what the attack was? This is all well known and established. So, who the hell wants such an incompetent liar in the White House, particularly after 8 years of it, courtesy of Obama?

    What has happened is that republicans have expended huge amounts of time and public money on a series of politically motivated fishing expeditions that have come up with nothing, while totally ignoring the business of the nation that they were elected to do and are paid to be doing.

    Democrats dragged the hearings out by stonewalling; remember Hillary’s secret server? She hid those emails from the investigators. If she was clean and if Obama was clean, the investigation would have been over in a month. There was more corruption than honesty. And as far as not doing their business, you can than Bruised Harry for that, as he blocked all business passing through the Senate.

    As stated above, if you are going to rely solely on left wing propaganda, you should not enter into conversations with adults. You always come off looking……

    …. silly and weak.

  4. 55

    Greg

    @Redteam, #31:

    Cheney’s Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War

    The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg.

    So, profiting from futures trades in cattle is a scandal, even though there’s no evidence of impropriety, but there’s nothing the least bit questionable about Cheney’s close relationship with a company that pocketed billions from a war that Cheney was instrumental in bringing about?

    It’s for reasons such as this that I sometimes wonder if there’s enough collective intelligence on the right to screw in a light bulb. (The incandescent variety, of course, since LED bulbs that yield the same illumination using only 1/7 the power and last for 10 years are clearly a socialist scam.)

  5. 56

    retire05

    @Greg:

    Still pimping the leftist lies, I see, Gullible Greggie.

    Were you concerned about Halliburtion when the Clinton administration awarded them no-bid contracts for Kosovo and Bosnia?

  6. 58

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Cheney’s Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War

    You know, I read somewhere where someone… right on this very topic… was whining about making unfounded accusations without proof. Gee… who was that?

    OH!!!! It was YOU, Greg!!! What a shock.

    “Cheney’s” Halliburton? Now, I am not on the Halliburton board, but I would be willing to wager that Cheney is not the sole owner. Furthermore, as VP, Cheney severed ties with Halliburton and his holdings were put in a blind trust (apparently you are unaware as to how reputable people handle their assets when serving the public).

    Hillary, on the other hand, signed agreements promising that the Clinton Foundation would not be taking foreign money while she was Sec of State…. which they went right ahead and did AND lied about it on the tax returns.

    Furthermore, as they were selling out our uranium reserves to the Russians, Bill was getting a half-million dollars for his words and lip-biting from the owner of the company doing the buying. Oh, but there COULDN’T POSSIBLY be any connection there, could there, Greg? Don’t even worry about it, look at it or investigate because the long history of Bill and Hillary being honest and above reproach makes such suspicions unnecessary. Right?

    Oh, Greggo…. really, drag yourself out from under the left wing lie-factories and collect some facts. Otherwise, it makes you look…. you guessed it…. silly and weak.

  7. 59

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    since LED bulbs that yield the same illumination using only 1/7 the power and last for 10 years

    you left off “and costing about 5 times as much.”

  8. 61

    Bill

    @rich wheeler:

    Who will be the nominee? No,,unfortunately she will be the nominee
    Repubs have almost no shot at beating her—Best hope Rubio or Kasich.

    I believe you are suffering under the delusion of Hillary’s “inevitability”. If you are relying on the liberal-friendly media, you are probably unaware of the dire straits in which Hillary finds herself, but once she ventures out of her force field which currently protects her from incoming questions, she will be pummeled by the most embarrassing queries. She cannot avoid them forever and Republicans certainly smell the blood in the water. Some of you are going to be in for a rude awakening when they come and Hillary buckles (for, buckle she will, if you can remember “What difference, at this point, does it make?!?”). She would not survive a debate, either among Democrat candidates or against a Republican.

    She is QUITE beatable because she herself provides so much of the assistance.

  9. 63

    Greg

    Hey, you can preorder a copy Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer’s “blockbuster exposé” of the Clinton’s financial dealings on Amazon for a mere $18, a $10 markdown. It’s already being touted as a #1 national best seller—even though it won’t be released for sale until tomorrow. It’s very popular among those who haven’t read it yet.

  10. 65

    Greg

    Money-grubbing, hypocritical crooks? It isn’t the Clintons who are charging suckers 18 bucks a pop for the pleasure of reading a 256-page propaganda tract. Schweizer is exploiting a targeted market, while shilling for an unscrupulous party that’s exploiting a targeted set of voters too out of touch with reality to realize that they’re the ones who are repeatedly getting taken for a ride. The guy doesn’t have what anyone would call a stellar record in matters of truthfulness, accuracy, and the utilization of reliable sources. He does understand marketing, however. A lot of the b.s. covered in his book has coincidentally been rolled out in the right-wing media just ahead of the publication date.

  11. 67

    Redteam

    @Bill: Bill, as I’ve said several times, I’m relatively sure Hill won’t be the candidate. She will bail when her physical and mental condition become known. She doesn’t answer questions because doesn’t know she’s being asked. Her brain is gone, has been for a while. Bill is right behind her.

  12. 68

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam:05 suggested their candidacy I laughed at HER suggestion
    I laugh at your suggestion HRC won’t be the nominee.
    Again You and your girlfriend will see HRC as the nominee.
    Warren is not running==Bernie has no chance
    Webb would have a puncher’s chance but don’t think he’ll run.

  13. 71

    Bill

    @Greg: “Hard Choices” (or the avoidance thereof), $24.30 @ Barnes & Noble. What a bargain.

    As a worshipper of both Hillary and Obama, you obviously have no concept of truthfulness. You devour their lies and deceit as if they were Frosted Flakes, adding more sugar to the more blatant lies (Benghazi, video… emails, erased… millions in contributions from foreign donors, no conflict of interest, etc) to help them go down. Get the hell out of here with your complaints about truthfulness… you wouldn’t know truthfulness if it charged you $500,000 for an off-the-shelf speech.

  14. 72

    rich wheeler

    @Redteam: Don’t be lazy RT–If you go back to #46 you’ll see 05 suggest Warren and Sanders as potential nominees–Subsequently you and her guffawed about Warren and the Castro brothers.
    What’s new?

  15. 73

    retire05

    @rich wheeler:

    05 suggested their candidacy I laughed at HER suggestion

    Perhaps you should re-read your comment I responded to. I never said they were/would be candidates.

    You said:

    There ain’t another BHO out there.

    I responded:

    You continue to show how delusional you are, RW. Sure there are; from Elizabeth Warren who Obama stole the “You didn’t built that” comment from (showing he doesn’t have an original thought), to the Castro brothers, both who have political aspirations for the highest office in the land, to Bernie Sanders, to others not yet well known.

    Where did I say anything about “candidates?”

  16. 74

    rich wheeler

    @retire05: When I said there are no other BHO’S out there—as in Dems. who could potentially beat HRC.,You said yes there are and named Warren and Sanders.
    Shall we now just agree HRC will get the nom?
    What’s new 05?

  17. 75

    retire05

    @rich wheeler:

    When I said there are no other BHO’S out there—as in Dems. who could potentially beat HRC.,

    But that’s not what you said. You said:

    There ain’t another BHO out there.

    You now come back and add a caveat:

    as in Dems. who could potentially beat HRC.

    I dealt with exactly what you said, not the caveat you add now.

    You’re just another dishonest leftist, back tracking like Gullible Greggie does so often, resorting to the “Although I said X, but what I really meant was Y.” Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.

  18. 77

    rich wheeler

    @retire05: The conversation had been about HRC and the presumed inevitability of her winning the nom in 2016
    You correctly reminded us of the 08 upset of HRC by the relatively unknown BHO.
    Were not your mention of Warren and Sanders a reminder that history could repeat itself for HRC IN 2016?

  19. 78

    retire05

    @rich wheeler:

    The conversation had been about HRC and the presumed inevitability of her winning the nom in 2016

    I was responding to ONE specific comment of yours, even highlighting it. But I guess the highlighting of one specific comment was lost on you.

    Were not your mention of Warren and Sanders a reminder that history could repeat itself for HRC IN 2016?

    Nope. It was simply a response to one particular comment by you, that there are no more BHOs. There are, and they are numerous. And a cancer on a once reasonable political party that is nothing more than a front for the socialist movement. JFK must be rolling over in his grave.

  20. 79

    Greg

    @Bill:

    While I wouldn’t spend money or time on Clinton’s book either, I’ll make an observation about it. Unlike Schweizer’s book, it isn’t a 256-page effort at character assassination.

  21. 80

    rich wheeler

    @retire05: It astounds me that when I said there are” no more BHO’S out there” you didn’t realize it was in ref to Dems who could POTENTIALLY pull a 2016 upset of HRC.
    I’ll stop assuming what to me seems obvious.

  22. 81

    retire05

    @rich wheeler:

    It astounds me that when I said there are” no more BHO’S out there” you didn’t realize it was in ref to Dems who could POTENTIALLY pull a 2016 upset of HRC.

    I don’t make assumptions on what people don’t say.

    I’ll stop assuming what to me seems obvious.

    That will work. Shall we call you Captain Obvious from now on?

  23. 83

    Redteam

    @retire05:

    And a cancer on a once reasonable political party that is nothing more than a front for the socialist movement. JFK must be rolling over in his grave.

    Once reasonable? Chuckle. Yes but once they let one member(LBJ) of their party murder another member of their party(JFK), it has all gone to hell. Though the fact that the entire election that year(1960) was bought by JFK’s dad and LBJ (Texas part) may have been stern warning that the party had already gone to hell.

  24. 84

    Redteam

    @Greg:

    it isn’t a 256-page effort at character assassination.

    Oh, how many pages does it take them to accomplish it?

    I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to write anything about Hillary Clinton that would ‘actually damage’ her character. Do you?

  25. 85

    Bill

    @Greg:

    While I wouldn’t spend money or time on Clinton’s book either, I’ll make an observation about it. Unlike Schweizer’s book, it isn’t a 256-page effort at character assassination.

    It’s a “character assassination” if it isn’t true. That remains to be seen (when the book is read) but, thus far, the Clinton’s aren’t denying it…. just attacking Schwitzer. Which sort of looks a bit like guilt.

    No, Hillary’s tome is not character assassination; it is character invention… trying to create character where there is none. Hillary’s is an attempt to rewrite the dismal history of her failed tenure at Secretary of State, something that will need several thick coats of heavy paint to gloss over.

    But, you hang in there with Hillary, Greg. I wouldn’t bet the farm on her surviving too much scrutiny, though. She WILL have to face questions… someday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *