Cracks in the Foundation?

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Aug 2016

Perhaps disturbed at the breadth and depth of Hillary’s corruption as it is revealed so far, reliably Democrat noise makers and cheer leaders are beginning to make noises in the direction of Hillary, not at the voters.

Former Democrat governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, recently offered advice in the direction of the public that the Clinton Foundation should be shut down if Hillary were elected.  The potential for conflict of interest would be too great, he felt.

The Washington Post yesterday carried the AP story above the fold, that detailed the extent to which donors to the Clinton Foundation got access to herself and the mechanism by which Hillary continued to participate in the goings on of the Foundation.  As a condition of taking the office of Secretary, President Obama had Hillary sign an ethics agreement which required her to be hands-off the Foundation.  (We’re not sure if this was before or after she signed under oath the document swearing she would protect the secrets of the United States and follow secrecy protocols.)  Now we see that trusted aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were used as go-betweens to get around the literal meaning of the words on the document she agreed to.

So, Hillary evidently lied to Obama about keeping out of the affairs of the Foundation, and again by maintaining a secret email server, of which Obama said he knew nothing.  Obama must admire Hillary’s legal skills at getting around her sacred commitments, since he endorsed her as his successor.

The Sacramento Bee editorialized yesterday that it would be a good thing for the Foundation to stop taking money from foreign governments and corporations because there were “too many troubling questions and awkward appearances” regarding Foundation donors receiving special access to Hillary when she was Secretary of State, and the “potential conflicts would become untenable with her in the Oval Office.”  The editorial then goes on to praise the many good works of the Foundation that, regrettably, will have to shut down for the sake of appearances while Hillary is president.

The New York Times did not publish the AP story at all – nowhere- in the newspaper of record.  Perhaps it has its own blockbuster story in the works, but who knows?

The low-level grumbling coming from the Democrat ranks is because they would love to embrace and endorse Hillary wholeheartedly, except the stench of corruption that emanates from her keeps them from doing their heart’s desire.  Hillary has to do something to make them feel better about her.  The Tribune of the people has been busy this week raising money from the rich elites of California and New England so that she can afford more flowers for herself and to dump more buckets of manure over the head of Donald Trump.  So she may not be hearing them right now.

Bill Clinton has floated the proposal that the Foundation will stop taking donations from foreigners if Hillary is elected, while others have called for the Foundation to cease entirely after her election.  Long-time Clinton acolyte James Carville complained that “people will die” if the Foundation is shut down, meaning (let’s be clear here because people around the Clintons have been dying for decades) that the good work of the Foundation has saved some people’s lives.  Carville wants to keep it going.

The Clintons are again dangling a bright, shiny object in front of people to distract them from something else.  Foreign donors getting cut off doesn’t stop pay-for-play with domestic donors.  Like, for example, the way Warren Buffet’s railroads benefit from transporting oil that would be carried cheaper and safer in pipelines.  And how investors in solar panel makers benefit from the shutting down of coal mining.  That sort of thing.

And delaying the shutdown (if it actually happens – a big IF) until after the election enables donors to get in line for pay for play between now and the election.  Opportunities for abuse abound, and all those who want to love Hillary are asking for is a gesture from her in this direction.  So they can have a clear conscience.

The depth of Hillary’s corruption that was revealed by the latest scandal has had a surprising reaction among Democrats.  I thought their stomachs were stronger than that, and that they already expected such corrupt activity.  Maybe they didn’t.  Maybe they were purblind fools all this time.

The logic that the Clinton Foundation would represent a conflict of interest and a source of corruption if Hillary were president has yet to be fully applied to the actual conflict of interest and the actual source of corruption that it was when she was Secretary of State.  If it is potentially bad with her as president, then it must have been actually bad when she was Secretary of State.  That thought hasn’t sunk in yet.

If more shoes drop, then Hillary’s campaign will begin to drift in the wrong direction.  Since she is a rudderless, powerless derelict, having the wind gust in an unfavorable direction would be disastrous for her campaign.

-30-