Money for Something: “Clinton Cash” exposes Hillary
Clintons once again put government up for sale
The book is called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich—and it could be the undoing of a woman much of the country assumed would one day hold the presidency.
Peter Schweizer’s latest work won’t officially hit stores until May 5, but the buzz generated by the release of advance copies already has Team Clinton on defense, and Republican heavy-hitters running offense against the financial history of the Clinton Foundation.
The basic premise of the book is that during the time Clinton served as secretary of state, the Department would grant favors to foreign entities in exchange for high-dollar speaking fees paid directly to the Clinton Foundation.
“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.
His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
…
The Clinton Foundation has come under scrutiny for accepting foreign donations while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. Last week, the foundation revised its policy to allow donations from countries like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Britain but prohibit giving by other nations in the Middle East.
Kentucky Senator and presidential contender Rand Paul has been beating this drum since early this month:
Paul had debuted this theory on April 7, in the interview he gave Fox News’s Sean Hannity right after his announcement. “She’s in charge of approving business deals as secretary of state,” Paul said of Clinton. “They’re called CFIAs, anything that relates to our security. There’s going to be something coming out in the next few weeks about companies that she approved deals for.”
“That they were against, and then they became for after money went to the foundation?” asked Hannity.
“Significant amounts, over $100 million being given to her foundation coming out in the next two weeks,” said Paul.
The next day, in New Hampshire, Fox News’s Carl Cameron asked him what the scandals might be.
“I think there is big news coming on the Clinton Foundation,” said Paul. “I think there are things that went on at the Clinton Foundation that are going to shock people. I think they’re going to make people question whether she ought to run for president.”
Late last week, he teased the scandal again during a speech at an SBA List event, saying that “[t]here’s going to be stuff coming out about the Clinton Foundation and their donations,” and alluding to collusion between the State Department and foreign corporations.
If conservatives are to launch an effective PR campaign against Hillary Clinton, this is the way to do it—one brick at a time. Persistence is key here; her team has handled situations like this before. They (at least to some extent) know what they’re doing, and they know that they can beat the heat if they’re just one cycle more persistent than the most persistent Republican.
Could this be the issue that leads to Clinton’s undoing? I haven’t read the book yet, so I couldn’t tell you. All I know is that this type of issue is the stuff that oppo researchers dream about at night.
I’m happy to assume it’s at least something. We can work with that.
You can listen to Senator Paul’s speech to SBA List here (h/t Bloomberg):
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Two big points:
First – if Benghazi (where 4 people died because of her, under her) and the email national security breach don’t affect her (most people DON’T CARE about either, or any, of this – they just would vote for her anyway, because she’s a WOMAN Democrat)….then why would people care about what this book says?!
Second – if the MSM doesn’t make this a big deal, most people won’t know, or care.
Educating the public, with the TRUTH – IN A MEGA-BROADCAST WAY – is the only thing that is going to take down this woman.
I just read a post on FB from someone I respect who believes this facile, blatantly untrue, pro-Obama propaganda Chris Rock tweet. These are educated, thirty-something, church-going, decent people. And they believe this drek.
Reaching and CONVINCING these people with the TRUTH and REALITY are KEY to getting our nation back on track, to avoiding collapse and 3rd world living standards, or worse.
1. Benghazi isn’t clear, and if most people who know about it were asked what it was, they couldn’t say much, except that she turned down, or the State Department turned down, requests for additional security at the outpost in Benghazi, which is what she wants the scandal to be about.
This sounds like neglect of duty, or incompetence, and would not amount to too much, because who is it that cannot make a mistake?
The real problem about Benghazi is her lying, or tolerating lies about it told by others. The State Department correcting the “talking points” about not being warned, and they weren’t really, except in amost general way, and about the mission not being a consulate, but had no objection to the claim that there were demonstrations at Benghazi and that the attack was spontaneous.
That’s what she was referring to when she said “What difference does it make?”
She didn’t want Republicans to talk about it any more. She preferred the “scandal” be about the lack of security, which she could handle. By basically saying she had nothing to do with it, and made no decisions.
And there are even more questions about Benghazi, like why did they have the very bad security, and the friretrap “safe room” and why was the ambassador there that day, and was he entrapped into being there and other things.
2. The MSM tried to make Benghazi an issue in 2012 – Bob Schieffer asked Mitt Romney a softball question about it at the start of the third debate, but he wouldn’t bite. He had been rattled by Obama’s claim that he had called it a terrorist act at the start (not realizing that what happenbed was that the position of the Administration got progressively less accurate as the week of September 9-15, 2012 wore on.)
As always, we have a job of educating to do. And we can.
It’s one of the prime roles WE have to play.
Chris Rock is a fool. Gas prices have fallen to where they are despite Obama’s anti-drilling and anti-fracking policies, not because of them. And Obama ended two wars by essentially surrendering to the terrorists and ceding our hard-won gains to them. As far as unemployment, despite the administration’s games with the numbers, we still have record-high numbers of Americans out of the labor force (six years into Obama’s presidency), record-high numbers of people on disability, and record-high numbers of people receiving food stamps.
Obama’s presidency is characterized as a failure because it IS a failure by any sensible measure. And if Chris Rock would remove his head from Obama’s anus, he would see that.
Actually? I’ve been shocked that Benghazi has hurt her to the degree it has with the public. Not with the political media, mind you– but with the public at large, especially independents (since Republicans aren’t likely to support her that much).
Now there’s no reason to expect that Democratic primary voters will withhold their votes over it, but Hillary’s general election popularity has taken actual significant body blows (at this very early stage) from Benghazi and then the email scandal. This alone should be considered shocking. That she is in little danger of losing the nomination over it says more about her party than her issues with the American public, sui generis.
Media will proclaim the New, Hip-Hop Hillary – “she’s bringing booty back!”
They will neglect to mention that it’s pirate booty.
Normal people would care about scandalous behavior, but then again we are talking about Democrats here ~
It’s illegal when former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and his fiancée do a bit of influence peddling. Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife had the same problem with the law. Same was true for Jack Abramoff and Bobby Baker.
Somehow though, Hillary Clinton’s apparent influence peddling while Secretary of State for the Clinton Foundation doesn’t have that same problem. Why exactly is that ?
As for the book, I don’t think we can always tell, accurately, why the money was given, but it is possible to say, that there’s no good logical and ethical reason that so much money should have been given to the Clinton Foundation. Particularly maybe by some of the entities that did it.
It had to be that some people were trying to curry influence. We can figure out later why and for what.
I think also some specific bad expenditures by the Clinton Foundation itself, where they did more harm than good, may be pointed to, particularly in Haiti. It is reasonable to suspect this was not incompetence, but money laundering.
This is all besides the usefulness of the Clinton Foundation as a slush fund, for trips abroad (which also served to advance the interests of the Clinton political machine) office furnishings, and employment for some people close to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Right now only a limited number of people are affected by the Clinton e-mail scandal, but it may grow slowly. As Speaker Boehner says, he doesn’t see how she can stonewall this thing for another one and half years.
There;s even a way to make this future oriented. What’s going to be her policy about archiving if she is elected president?
http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/04/20/awkward-questions-for-clinton/
Ol’ Walleyes and her State Dept. are STILL getting a lot of brown people killed.
A lot of them in really ugly ways.
“The U.S. now ranks not first, not second, not third, but 12th among developed nations in terms of business startup activity. Countries such as Hungary, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, Israel and Italy all have higher startup rates than America does.
We are behind in starting new firms per capita, and this is our single most serious economic problem. Yet it seems like a secret. You never see it mentioned in the media, nor hear from a politician that, for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births.”
Again, that’s not by accident. It’s the Obamic Decline, working as designed.
And Ol’ Walleyes or any other of the viable Deemocrats won’t stop it.
Good point. Why would anyone start up a business during the Obama administration? New regulations constantly, an administration hostile to new development, an agenda that favors new taxes (which Congress won’t pass). The president is a lame duck. New ventures can be put on the shelf to wait and see if the country maintains a Republican Congress and gives it a Republican president in 2016. Want to know why the recession hasn’t really ended except in certain government statistics? Look to the White House and see the reason.
Indeed, I had a six location business with 68 FT + 20 PT employees heading into 2008, with my intention to sell it all in 2016 and retire. Upon hearing the initial basics on Obamacare mandates and upon seeing an avalanche of regulations in the pipeline, I worried I’d have nothing left to sell by 2016. I sold all but one mini-office, which I work alone in semi-retirement. Mostly I buy rabbits and spend all day painting their little faces to look like Obama. Then I torture them.
Sounds…um…therapeutic…
Along with my official Nancy Pelosi Dart Board.
There are several things that need be present to foster business formation.
Among those, of prime importance are…
1. capital formation, and
2. predictable risks
Under Fwank-Dodd, capital formation is crippled.
Under the Obamic Decline, risk is off-the-charts, and approaching infinite. Worse, it is unpossible to predict.
The uncertainty wrought by the Obama adminstration has killed venture capitalism.
Quick, someone call the FEC.
Ban the book now, let the author and publisher fight it out in the courts for the next two years.
Remember, kids, Free Speech doesn’t mean you can say bad things about powerful people!
The Democrat base doesn’t read. They’re busy in the welfare lines, protesting at Occupy rallies, looting in Ferguson, binge watching the Kardashians, hating Christians and Jews and living in their parent’s basements. Sadly, this book is preaching to the choir.
The New York Times covered this and did not spin it much at all, but confirmed Rand Paul’s recent claims that bad news was imminent for the Clinton campaign.
The book is not a he said/she said hit piece. Early reviewers state that its claims are well documented from government sources such as tax records. This is important because they are objective, available to anyone who wants to check. (Well, available until now, lol).
Given that the NYT usually goes right into automatic defense mode for the Clintons, the editorial decision to OK the article may be another sign of the left’s rejection of a Hillary Clinton candidacy. That’s different.
Local media here in Iowa were not shy about reporting the staged meetings with “reglar folks”. The CBS affiliate carried it as their top story and also referenced her lie about her grandparents all being “immigrants”.
I do not believe Hillary Clinton will ever live in the White House again but she’ll have a few billions dollars to ease the pain of her disappointment.
Another Clinton scandal? Absolutely. Will most of the American public care? Probably not. There have been so many scandals, so many examples of government lies and failures to tell the whole truth, they have lost their shock power with the public. Scandal is the new norm. People are so used to corruption in their government, particularly among Democrats, they seem to no longer notice. Nixon had seven minutes of a tape erased, got impeached, and had to resign. Hillary and Obama have done so much more and survived. As for the New York Times, if they turn on Hillary it may be because for them she isn’t liberal enough.
Hold your fire Republicans! Remember, only Republicans can screw this up! Hillary will hang herself if we just let her! Silence is Golden!
I’ve been hearing this for a long time, and Hillary just keeps rolling along.
So if Hillary continues to flop, (or gets indicted heh) where does that $2Billion go? (which she allegedly had lined up)
Much might go to another Democrat, or the next best thing might be to buy some favors from the Bush Dynasty.
Or maybe they are already too invested in Hillary. She won’t be giving any foundation refunds if she fizzles.
While we’re on the subject of influence peddling and politics …
During her tenure as Senator Smathers’ secretary, Mary Jo Kopechne shared an apartment flat with Nancy Carole Tyler, secretary to Bobby Baker, an aide to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson. An emerging scandal involving Baker’s corrupt activities prompted President John F. Kennedy to privately offer Senator Smathers the second spot on the 1964 presidential ticket with plans to drop Johnson as his running mate. The roommates, Kopechne and Tyler, allegedly leaked the President’s plans to the press.
Some researchers have claimed a link between the Bobby Baker scandal and the 1963 JFK assassination. Tyler died mysteriously in a plane crash in May 1965. Kopechne went on to become secretary to Senator Robert F. Kennedy, until he was assassinated in June 1968 during his run for Presidency.
Hillary Clinton has been corrupt to her rotten core since before the first time she changed her name. Fired by the Democratic staff on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate – and for unethical behavior.
$100,000 profit on $1000 “invested” in cattle futures? If you believe that, you must be an Obama voter, because you have to be either stupid or corrupt yourself.
Business with the MacDougalls? The Riadys? Missing subpoenaed records found in her possession all along?
No, you have to be clinically insane to believe Hillary is honest.
Now we know why Bill Clinton is so greedy. Hillary probably charges $10,000,000 for BJ.
Sen Bob Menendez purportedly accepted $1M in gifts and campaign contributions from Dr. Salomon Melgen in return for favours.
Former Sec’y of State Hillary Clinton has a set of family ‘charities’ which has raised over $500M from 2009 to 2012, much of it from foreign interests, while Clinton was serving as Sec’y of State. From a thefederalist article:
“Does a foreign government have business with the U.S. State Department? Is a foreign government generally seeking official action by the U.S. State Department? You better believe it.
“Oman, Qatar (which owns the Al-Jazeera network), Kuwait, and Algeria all funneled clash to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. Each country had business pending before the U.S. government. And it turns out that Hillary even met with the Algerian prime minister after her foundation cashed a $500,000 check from the Algerian government …
“A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” ”
Sen Menendez is indicted on 14 counts of corruption/bribery/fraud. Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton?
Link to the thefederalist article:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/