The hyper-partisan environment of presidential politics is preventing an open discussion of the Clinton dilemma.
When the Clinton ethics question is raised, allies in politics and the media, well trained thanks to the unending trail of abuses of the public trust, respond vehemently, frequently alleging bias against female candidates or a fictional “vast right wing conspiracy,” intentionally ignoring the fact that Clintonian practices are sufficiently controversial to engender spontaneous opposition.
The reality is that despite the good intentions of their many supporters, the history of the Clintons is less a political movement than a criminal enterprise, in which an objective review of the records leads to a legitimate concern that official favors have been traded for personal enrichment, in a manner that may have seriously harmed the United States.
The Office of Inspector General’s Report on former Secretary Clinton’s emails noted that “…Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act…”
This, of course, is just one part of the Clinton email scandal—probably, the lesser part. The remaining question is what is in the emails themselves, particularly those that have not been made public
For most candidates, the OIG analysis would be harmful enough. Added to the long list of Hillary Clinton’s ethical violations and consistent record of devastating Obama/Clinton policy failures as secretary of state, (the failed reset with Russia, Benghazi, ISIS, the Russian/Chinese/Iranian/North Korean nuclear arms increases, alienation of key US allies, etc.) however, it raises the very serious question of how and why she will be the candidate of a major political party for President of the United States. Indeed, some members of her own party have raised that issue, even though her only current opponent is an aged socialist with only a limited chance of winning the general election, even against a candidate as unusual as Donald Trump.
The depth of opposition from many committed Democrats comes from the reality that the Clintons are more openly for sale than any other politicians at their high level. The New York Post recently noted that “Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, ‘Hard Choices.’ Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria…”
Another manual therapy used in cialis cheapest chiropractic care is massage. Let us throw http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1483111470_add_file_5.pdf buy cheap cialis light on few of the new car games. Unfortunate sexual life makes men edgy and off and on again an erection is realized however not maintained long enough to finish sex; at different times an erection is never accomplished in any tadalafil prescription icks.org case. A single dose of Kamagra pill or are there other factors that must be considered? Read on brand cialis price to find out more.
Other ex-holders of high political office have earned large speaking fees, as well. But they did so after having left the political arena, and in a manner in which no real suspicion was raised that the acceptance of dollars was such a direct quid-pro-quo. Hillary’s solicitation of funds from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation, a source of personal enrichment for the Clintons, while she was serving as Secretary of State, was a blatant violation of the public trust.
Also during her tenure as Secretary of State, Judicial Watch reports billions of dollars of funds were somehow “misplaced.”
The history of Clinton scandals is in a class by itself, not only for the amounts of dollars raised, but for the potential harm not only to the public trust but to the nation as a whole. Serious questions still remain about the relationship of China’s efforts to make illegal campaign contributions during the Bill Clinton presidency, and President Clinton’s extraordinary act of allowing the sale of a supercomputer to China.
The China issue continues. Time Magazine has just reported that “Wang Wenliang, [is] a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency… An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to [Virginia Governor] McAuliffe’s campaign [McAuliffe is a very close friend of the Clintons, who recently gave the vote to over a half million convicted felons in an effort to insure that Clinton carries the state in November] three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million.
Perhaps the most devastating ethical question surrounding Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State concerns the transfer of uranium, the substance required for the construction of nuclear weapons, to Russia. The New York Times, not known for being anti-Clinton, reported: “the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…As the Russians gradually assumed control … in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013…a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons…And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin.”
The Clintons protest that the complaints are just part of the usual partisan smear campaign. But their long and unique history, their close association with numerous ethical issues too numerous to repeat here, and the unprecedented nature of the involvement of foreign governments raises substantial issues about the inherent lack of appropriateness of another Clinton presidency.