Warning: Undefined array key "sample_issue" in /home2/jbswbdv/public_html/wp-content/themes/tna/template-parts/paywall/trinity.php on line 15
So now we know that a lot of foreign governments — many of them with very shaky records on human rights — have given a ton of money to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s foundation. Is anyone surprised? More to the point, is anyone really bothered by it?
At least one top-ranking Republican is. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, says that “The latest revelations about the Clinton Foundation’s shady deals are disqualifying.” And by “disqualifying,” he means they should be enough to keep Hillary from getting her party’s nomination to be the next President of the United States.
Fat chance that will happen. Nevertheless, a bunch of questions are being asked about the millions of dollars that countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and U.A.E. poured into the Clinton Foundation, much of it while Hillary served as Secretary of State.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The RNC chairman declared, “No one in their right mind, Democrat or Republican, can think the foundation receiving foreign government donations while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, and in violation of its ethics agreement with the Obama Administration, is acceptable.” And he added, “This is symptomatic of the Clintons’ obsession with raising cash at all costs.”
The foundation was created in 2001 when Bill Clinton left office. Originally called the William J. Clinton Foundation, it changed its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation when Hillary resigned as Secretary of State. Since its formation, the foundation has raised a staggering $1.6 billion, with much of the money coming from foundations, corporations and foreign governments.
It’s illegal for a foreign government to contribute money to an American politician. But it’s perfectly okay to do so through a foundation.
That probably explains why the government of Algeria gave the foundation $500,000 in 2010, ostensibly to assist with hurricane relief in Haiti. The contribution was made while Algeria was spending heavily to lobby the State Department. The Foundation says it was a mistake it did not seek approval from the State Department’s ethics office to accept the donation, as it should have. But it insists that all of the money was spent in Haiti, just as the donor wished.
I have no doubt the claim is true. After all, half-a-million bucks was drop in the bucket for the foundation. But the question is, why give the money to the Clinton Foundation at all? Why not just send it to the afflicted country?
The answer, of course, is that the Algerians wanted their generosity recognized and remembered by the Clintons. And I’m sure it was.
In a lengthy report on the issue, the Washington Post said, “The foundation presents a unique political challenge for Clinton, and one that has already become a cause of concern among Democrats as she prepared to launch an almost-certain second bid for the presidency.”
In a marvel of understatement, the paper added, “Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments.”
The paper noted, “Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders.” And then it added this ominous note: “But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.”
Indeed it has. But the millions that have already flowed into Bill and Hillary’s favorite charity will be a drop in the bucket, compared to what will happen if she is elected as our next president.
Yes, there is no question that the Clintons have raised “doing well by doing good” into an art form. And no doubt they expect it to just get better in the future.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
Chip Wood was the first news editor of The Review of the News and also wrote for American Opinion, our two predecessor publications. He is now the geopolitical editor of Personal Liberty Digest. This article first appeared on PersonalLiberty.com and has been reprinted with permission.
