There is a term for those who will do favors for cash.
We already knew that the Clintons pulled down $25 million in speaking fees since 2014. While not illegal, it certainly is questionable ethically since it’s been common knowledge for the last thirty years or so that Hillary was going to run for President. Now we learn of more Hillary actions that are really of dubious ethics.
As Secretary of State, Clinton was a strong advocate of free trade. Once she left office, companies who benefit from that free trade paid her back handsomely in speaking fees.
Companies and coalitions aligned with her past positions on the trade legislation ponied up more than $2 million of the nearly $12 million in speaking fees Clinton hauled in between January 2014 and this March, weeks before she declared her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.
A spokesman for a watchdog group had this to say:
“I suppose that those in favor of the free-trade agreements know that when push comes to shove, Hillary Clinton is going to be on their side anyway,” said Craig Holman, who lobbies Congress for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. “Providing her with a lot of money is one sure way to keep her in their camp. . . . That’s how you buy influence: Find ways to hand cold cash over to the Clinton family.”
And here’s the rub:
What is unusual about the latest statement, however, is that it reveals Hillary Clinton directly enriching herself from the treasuries of Fortune 500 companies that would hold major stakes in a variety of issues if she is elected the nation’s first female president.
“Nothing illegal, but this is going to be used against her in the campaign,” Holman said. “And it should be. This is really just voluntarily placing herself in a conflict-of-interest situation that raises red flags. It’s almost irresponsible.”
She owes them. Big time. And she willingly put herself in the situation.
But she’s hit a bump on the road (no, not the Benghazi dead this time). democrats are largely against the Trans Pacific Partnership and suddenly Hillary has gone dead quiet on the issue, refusing to take a stance. That’s not only because of the personal profits she’s earned, but because of the millions given to the Clinton Foundation:
The more than 150 companies and associations the have formed a coalition in support of the TPP are currently unable to donate money directly to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But the list of companies backing the free trade deal includes dozens of major donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Companies who have signed on to the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP have donated a minimum of $21 million to the Clinton Foundation. The actual number is likely much higher than that because donations are disclosed in wide ranges.
There’s plenty of evidence that Hillary has been bought and will return favors for cash. She “sold her soul” to Morocco.
It’s certainly true that the Clintons have had a long—and lucrative—relationship with Morocco. Moroccan King Mohammed VI, who was traveling abroad during last week’s CGI meeting in Marrakech, nonetheless loaned one of his palaces to Bill and Chelsea Clinton to stay in during the meeting, according to attendees. The king was listed on a donor roll as having pledged as much as $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation to help build Bill Clinton’s presidential library (though the foundation says the donation never came through), while the state firm OCP has donated as much as $6 million over the years to the Clinton Foundation’s efforts. Both Clintons have publicly embraced the king in recent years as an example of an Arab moderate ruler with whom the U.S. should partner, and leaked Moroccan diplomatic cables show that Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state was seen by Rabat as among its most ardent supporters in the Obama administration.
Vogel adds this:
There is no evidence that she tailored her official positions to suit Morocco’s preferences because of personal or financial relationships. But the overlap between her diplomatic portfolio and the funding for her family’s philanthropy illustrates the way nearly any foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation can be viewed through the prism of U.S. policy. And it highlights why countries, companies and individuals that could benefit from her past and possibly future public service might be inclined to support the foundation.
No “direct evidence.” Right. There was no “direct evidence” Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK either.
Jeff Immelt’s GE forks over money to the Clinton Foundation and voilà:
There appears to be no dispute that in 2012, the State Department lobbied the Algerian government in a successful effort to help GE obtain contracts to sell power plants to Algeria. Indeed, GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, seems to admit as much, calling it standard practice for the U.S. government to provide help to U.S. companies trying to sell products abroad.
To my knowledge, there is also no dispute that GE contributed to the Clinton Foundation around this time. The National Center for Public Policy Research, citing the Wall Street Journal, says that “GE donated between $500,000 and $1 million to a health partnership with the Clinton Foundation,” and that “Clinton’s subsequent actions helped GE obtain a contract with the Algerian government to supply turbines for six power plants to the tune of $1.9 billion.”
Paul Mirengoff adds:
Thus, it looks like Algeria’s contribution bought it access to the State Department in 2010. Whether actual U.S. policy towards Algeria changed at that point, or later on when Algeria did business with GE at the State Department’s urging, is a matter worth exploring.
What we do know is that the Clintons received money from both GE and Algeria; GE received lucrative contracts from Algeria; and Algeria got, at a minimum, increased access to the State Department, at least in 2010.
Money made all those human rights issues go away.
The Clinton Foundation has scored big donations from Muslim countries which oppress women and hang gays.
This steady drip drip drip of non-direct evidence is a nearly a tsunami at this point. She owes people. She owes a LOT and you have to be an idiot to think the donors are not expecting something in return. The left would have crucified Mitt Romney for this sort of thing but no- they support the super-rich, old, white, 0.1%’er who will do the bidding of big banks and big corporations above anything else. Hillary is the closest thing to Mitt Romney the democrats could offer- but she’s far worse than anything the left threw at Romney. He didn’t sell his country out.
Never in the field of Presidential campaigning endeavor has one person owed so much to so many. The last thing the country needs is a President owing so much to the wrong people.