The question in that blog title has been asked many times. And the answer is never a very good one for the Clintons (though you’d never know it based on how little mainstream media attention that answer is given).
Here’s the latest example of why I say that, courtesy of excerpts from today’s editorial at Investors Business Daily:
We wrote last week about how the Clinton Foundation gathered some $100 million from a variety of Gulf sheikhs and billionaires, not to mention taking in millions of “donations” from private businesses that later benefited from their supposed “charitable” largesse.
And now comes a more serious, far-reaching question: Is the entire Clinton Foundation so full of conflicts of interest and questionable dealings that it amounts to little more than a massive fraud intended solely to enrich its presidential namesake and his family?
Charles Ortel, a Wall Street financial analyst, who pored over the Clinton Foundation’s books, filings and records, thinks so. He concluded that “a substantial portion of Clinton Foundation activities is certainly not ‘charitable’ or ‘tax-exempt’ in the accepted legal senses, so I wonder why state, federal, and foreign regulators have allowed the Clinton Foundation to continue operating as it has done, illegally, for so long.”
Following a 15-month investigation, Ortel says that major questions “remain concerning the roles that Bill Clinton and others played in guise of charity right from the beginning in 1997, all the way to the present, and particularly before December 2009.”
The Clinton Foundation last year was forced to refile its tax returns for the years from 2010 to 2013 to correct “errors in the report of donations from foreign governments,” the Foundation noted. As we reported before, the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator removed the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation from its list of charities because of its “atypical business model.”
Peter Schweizer, in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash,” documented how “during Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions (either as private citizens or government officials) with foreign governments, corporations and private financiers.”
These deals put millions in the Clintons’ pockets through lucrative speaking arrangements or by donations to the Clinton Foundation. And the sums, says Schweizer, were “staggering.”
More troubling, Schweizer noted, is the apparent link between major U.S. diplomatic initiatives during Hillary’s years as secretary of state and the dealmaking by the Clintons. Among the more suspicious, he said, are “the Russian government’s acquisition of American uranium assets; access to vital U.S. nuclear technology; matters related to Middle East policy; the approval of controversial energy projects; the overseas allocation of billions in taxpayer funds; and U.S. human rights policy, to name a few.”
It’s been said that Hillary’s actions as secretary of state in guiding donations to the family charity, possibly in exchange for official favors, may now be part of an FBI investigation. If so, socialist Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign to win the Democratic nomination may be the least of her problems.
Is that clear enough for you? I’m suspecting it is.
Now, here’s another question: what possible reason, other than overt partisanship, do mainstream media have for largely suppressing the massively damaging information about this Foundation – the one that has Hillary Clinton’s name on the masthead?
And how completely does it tie into mainstream media’s dedicated lack of interest in finding out what was in the transcripts of those quarter-million-dollar speeches Ms. Clinton made to Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, and Deutschebank, and Sanford Bernstein, among others.
Surely someone, somewhere has a one…maybe even an audio tape they recorded of what she said. So why is it that the same media which moved heaven and earth to “prove” that George Bush missed a few national guard meetings in the 1970’s isn’t ferreting out the content of those speeches?
Consider that last question rhetorical. We all know the answer.
