Posted on 04/28/2015 2:21:08 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
To hear Hillary Rodham Clinton’s aides and supporters tell it, questions about her family foundation’s fund-raising while she was secretary of state are “nothing more than a tangled web of conspiracy theories” by Republican operatives.
Sorry: The steady flow of disturbing news has concern growing in Democratic circles.
That’s likely one reason the foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Palley, released a long statement admitting “mistakes” that she insisted were mostly minor clerical errors.
Hmm. Charity Navigator, the philanthropic watchdog, has the Clinton Foundation on its “watchlist,” as it does “when we become aware of conduct that may affect a donor’s decision to support that charity.”
Watchlist status, according to CN, remains in effect until “we see evidence that the issues identified . . . have been resolved.” Only 23 charities are listed (including Al Sharpton’s National Action Network).
Which is why Team Clinton’s counter-attack is failing even on the left.
Ask Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Sunlight Foundation, which monitors government transparency. He told The Post: “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”
Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait wrote that even in a best-case scenario, the Clintons have been “disorganized and greedy.”
And Jim Cooper, a veteran New York Democratic fund-raiser and bundler who was enlisted as a “HillStarter” by the Clinton campaign, says he’s holding back for now from tapping his network.
“I was sitting there trying to draft the e-mail, and I just couldn’t do it,” he tells The Washington Times. “I just wish that there would have been a more forceful response from the Clinton campaign to some of this.”
Until Hillary herself delivers just that, this story’s not going away.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Leftists are always jealous at the thought that somebody else is getting away with or has more than they do.
Hat tip Investor's Business Daily.
Taking in foreign/corporate zillions while Hillary controlled State
Dept decisions is reprehensible. But what did the Clintons do w/ the
money once it was deposited the Foundation coffers? Can you say
money-laundering? ===========================================
ALL WE NEED TO KNOW: (1) The Clinton Foundation's do-goodism (2) aided and abetted by Bill Clinton's globe- trotting, (3) lucrative deals signed off by Hillary, and, (4) forced to refile tax returns.
YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS a billion dollar organization called Enron made all sorts of accounting and tax mistakes----its accounting firm collapsed. Enron's CFO went to jail b/c of numerous shady entities he established offshore. The CFO's wife also went to jail for signing falsified tax returns.
==================================================
JUST ONE NOTORIOUS EXAMPLE---The Clinton Foundation got Millions from a Russian who trades with Iran: Victor Pinchuk owns the EastOne Group investing company and the Interpipe Group. He is the second richest man in Ukraine AND the largest individual donor to the Clinton Foundation......the Foundation spinoff "The Clinton Global Initiative" received millions from Pinchuk while Hillary was Secy of State.
New Yorker magazine confirms Bill Clinton pocketed $500,000 for a speech in Moscow that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank" that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the lucrative Uranium One deal.
<><> Was Uranium One corporate money ever deposited offshore?
<><> In Russian banks? Maybe Sberbank or Vnesheconombank?
<><> Maybe funneled from there to secret numbered accounts in Zurich and Geneva?
================================================
<><> Maybe deposits in secret accounts held by Obama?
We peons are asked to believe that Obama was on the golf course when foreign policy decisions were being made......looking like he "didn't know" about all these radical changes in foreign policy.
Heck, it wasn't b/c Valerie "forgot" to tell him.
<><> Maybe the deal was Obama pleading abject ignorance about US foreign policy being jerked around by the Clintons.......as long as he got his cut of the Clintons' foreign policy finagling?
don’t expect public attention to force a resolution on any of this. Hillary will run, and she will be the nominee. There’s no one else, and roughly 45% of all voters could be counted on to vote for her even if she killed someone. Or someone else besides Vince Foster, I suppose.
Where it is going to be most effective is at the Republican National Convention, when most voters will finally be listening.
All of the scandals will do the most damage when presented in a laundry list speech, as was performed by Zell Miller in 2004 and Joe Lieberman in 2008. Or Clint Eastwood in 2012. These are the speeches undecided voters remember most from these respective conventions. The important thing is that it be given not by a hardcore Republican insider, but by a Democrat fed up with the Clinton family. Or, preferably by a likeable actor, who might include ironic humor: Give voters permission to accept Hillary Clinton for who she truly is, and then to laugh at her. Help them to understand just how toxic she really is. And that she is by no means “inevitable.” I believe Tom Selleck would be a perfect candidate.
I sincerely hope that whoever moves Reince Priebus’ puppet strings is already giving this matter thought.
Good points——I think, in light of the Clintons foreign shenanigans, the question of whether Hillary can be expected to preserve and defend the security of everyday Americans will be a BIG issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.