Who was more corrupt—the Clintons or Obama?
It’s a toss to me, but there’s a difference.
The Clintons—especially Hillary—were madly corrupt in a personal way. They wanted to acquire wealth along with exercising political power.
Obama was more of a “robbin’ hood.” He may have diverted far larger sums of money than the Clintons, but he sprayed it around to his favorite lefty causes—gay this, Arab that. WHy, he managed to send off $400 million as he walked out the door to the Palis.
Meanwhile, poor Bill and Hillary had to scrimp and save to build up a Foundation war chest of about that much, taking bribes one by one, giving speeches. Poor things.
In terms of their bank accounts, I’d say the Clintons are way ahead of Barack at this point. But in terms of the amount of money directly diverted, I’d give the edge to Obama. True, Hillary’s actions at State which were influenced by bribes (say, Uranium One, or the Haitian relief effort) may have cost us a lot, but Obama was far more direct.
The slush fund payments from coerced settlements that are the subject of this article is an example.
Obama reinvested more of this loot back into the criminal organizations that will support him and his cronies.
A chicken in every pot.