אן אנאליז איבער די קלינטאן פאונדעישן, און פארוואס, דורכאויס ביל'ס רעדע האט ער עס אפילו איינמאל נישט דערמאנט.
איך ברענג עס צו, ווייל מיר איזעס געווען אונטרסאנט, איך בעט איבער די וואס קענען נישט ליינען ענגליש, ווען איך האב צייט פרוביר איך אביסל צו איבערטייטשן.
Bill Clinton on Tuesday portrayed his wife as a “change maker” whose life has overflowed with good intentions and commitment to others. No one can spin a yarn like Bill, and for the believers it was a touching portrait. But if it’s true, why do the polls show that 68% of Americans don’t trust Hillary Clinton ? That has to do with the rest of the story, which is how the Clintons have used politics to enrich themselves and retain power.
Nowhere is this clearer than at the words you didn’t hear Mr. Clinton speak: the Clinton Foundation. This supposedly philanthropic operation has become a metaphor for the Clinton business model of crony politics. The foundation is about producing a different kind of “change.”
No doubt the foundation does some charitable good, but this is incidental to its main purpose of promoting the Clinton political brand. Since its creation in 1997, the nominal nonprofit has served as a shadow Super Pac, designed to keep the Clintons in the national headlines, cover their travel expenses, and keep their retinue employed between elections.
The payroll has included,
1) Huma Abedin, who drew a State Department salary even as she managed politics at the foundation and is now vice-chairwoman of the Clinton campaign.
2 ) Dennis Cheng raised money for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 bid, then became the foundation’s chief development officer and now leads Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 fundraising.
3 ) Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s chief of staff at State, sat on the foundation board. And don’t forget Sid Blumenthal, the longtime Clinton Svengali who was secretly advising Mrs. Clinton at State while drawing a foundation salary. This may not be illegal but the charity here is for the Clintons’ benefit.
The funding for this political operation has come from nearly every country and major company in the world. These contributors have the cover of giving to charity, when everybody knows the gifts are political tribute to a woman determined to be President. Donations to a charity aren’t governed by the same caps or restrictions as those that go to a traditional Super Pac. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren somehow overlooked this in their Monday night riffs against money in politics.
Witness the charitably minded donors from Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
1) The Swiss bank UBS gave more than $500,000 to the foundation after Secretary Clinton solved its IRS problem.
2) Canadian mining magnate Ian Telfer used a family charity to donate millions to the foundation at the same time a Cabinet committee on which Mrs. Clinton sat was reviewing (and ultimately greenlighted) a Russian mining deal involving his company.
3) According to the Washington Post, Bill Clinton received $105 million for 542 speeches between January 2001 (when he left the White House) and January 2013 (when Hillary stepped down from State), often from companies and countries with business before State.
The foundation also rewards Clinton friends and political allies.
1) This newspaper reported in May that the Clinton Global Initiative (a foundation program) directed a financial commitment to a company, Energy Pioneer Solutions, part-owned by Clinton friends.
2) In 2010 Canadian tycoon Frank Giustra, a foundation donor, won the right to cut timber in Colombia, not long after the Clintons met with Colombia’s president.
There are no doubt other examples we don’t know about because the Clintons have hidden foundation details until they are exposed in the press. The foundation had to admit that it continued to accept donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, though she had promised not to do so. The Associated Press reported this month that the official calendar Mrs. Clinton kept at State publicly omitted at least 75 meetings she held with “longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, and corporate and other outside interests.”
Keep in mind that the Clintons did all this after their ethical travails of the 1990s and knowing Mrs. Clinton would run for President again. It’s as if the lesson they learned from the 1990s isn’t that they should cut fewer corners but that they can get away with anything. And maybe they can.