APRIL 28, 2015
From a reckless drunk Texas cowboy, to a failed black
president, to candidates ranging from multimillionaires to secretive old hag. The middle class has no luck, as all these
people have and will ruin our country.
In the nearly two-year smorgasbord of scandal (real and
faux) that the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign promises to
deliver, last month’s brouhaha over her email was but an appetizer.
Of course we know that scorpions like the money and they are
extremely secretive and manipulative.
These are the trademarks of the hilarious Hillary C. The drubbing she received in 2008 was not
enough, now she is asking for more. As
the story says, the wolf changed cloths and now she pretends to be a sheep –
may lord help us all.
Not two weeks after she officially announced her run for
president, Clinton has been informed that she will be hauled not once, but
twice, before the House committee re-investigating the attacks on the U.S.
compound in Benghazi in 2012.
With the publication of a new book alleging connections
between donations to the charity she ran with her husband, former President
Bill Clinton, and increased scrutiny of her record as Secretary of State,
mainstream and partisan media alike have caught Clinton fever again. Reporters
are drawing
new connections between Bill’s speeches and Hillary’s work at State, while
Clinton opponents are dissecting
the statements of Clinton Foundation representatives in search of falsehood
or misdirection.
The book, Clinton Cash, by conservative author Peter
Schweizer, makes a circumstantial case for possible wrongdoing by Clinton,
tying the timing of speaking fees paid to her husband and donations to the
foundation to actions taken by the State Dept. that benefited the donors.
While Schweizer has no proof of any quid pro quos, the
attention generated by the not-yet-published book has forced the Clinton Foundation
into a defensive posture, and in the early going, things aren’t working out
very well.
Last week, the foundation was forced to acknowledge errors
in its tax filings and said it would refile several years’ worth of Internal
Revenue Service documentation to better identify the foreign donors that gave
money to its various programs.
On Sunday, in a blog post on the foundation’s website,
acting CEO Maura Pally addressed the refiling issue and also explained the
relationship between the foundation and a Canadian charity called the Clinton
Giustra Enterprise Partnership.
While the Clinton Foundation disclosed money it received
from the Partnership, it did not disclose the names of those who gave money to
the Partnership. This looked fishy to some, because Frank Giustra, the Canadian
billionaire who helped found the organization, also owned U.S. uranium-mining
rights that he wanted to sell to a Russian company associated with President
Vladimir Putin. The U.S. government committee that eventually approved the sale
included the State Department run by Hillary Clinton.
Some of the donors to the partnership, it turned out, were
also affiliated with Giustra’s company.
Pally defended the foundation, saying that it had simply
complied with Canadian disclosure laws. “This is hardly an effort on our part
to avoid transparency – unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law all charities
are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from
each donor,” Pally wrote.
Today, though, came news of more questionable timing between
the financial dealings of former President Clinton and then-Secretary of State
Clinton.
The International Business Times reported
on Monday afternoon that the investment bank Goldman Sachs forked over
$200,000 to have Bill Clinton deliver a speech to its clients just three days
before Hillary made a speech at State praising Goldman’s involvement in sending
U.S. students to travel in China. A few months later, Goldman would begin
lobbying the State Department on various international issues.
Also on Monday, the conservative website The Federalist took
issue with a claim by the Clinton Foundation, made in a tweet last week that 88
percent of its expenditures “go directly to our life-changing work.”
Source: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/