- Dec 8, 2013
- 22,712
- 16,930
- 2,415
Officially, they hail from Chappaqua and Washington, by way of Arkansas. But when it comes to integrity, they’re straight out of Tammany Hall.
They are the Clintons of Tammany, and they set their moral compass to the reckonings of George Washington Plunkitt, “The Sage” of that fabled Irish-American political machine.
More than a century ago, he laid out his philosophy to a biographer, calling it “A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics.”
Among Plunkitt’s gems: Tammany “does missionary work like a church, it’s got big expenses and it’s got to be supported by the faithful.”
He quickly helped families burned out of their houses because “it’s philanthropy, but it’s politics, too — mighty good politics. Who can tell how many votes one of these fires brings me? The poor are the most grateful people in the world, and, let me tell you, they have more friends in their neighborhoods than the rich.”
Then there’s this one: “Everybody is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft.”
Plunkitt insisted his immense wealth was the product of honest graft, adding, “I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: ‘I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.’”
Well, what do you know — the line perfectly captures the Clinton credo, too. From their attempted pilfering of White House furniture to raking in gazillions from countries and companies that might want a government favor or two, they have spent their careers seeing their opportunities and taking a cut of the action.
Indeed, to judge from the reports about a new book called “Clinton Cash,” author Peter Schweizer reveals a scheme that would make Plunkitt blush with envy. Schweizer describes an inside-the-government, outside-the-government arrangement, where Hillary used her post as secretary of state to do favors for companies and foreign countries, which then paid good ol’ Bubba up to $500,000 for a speech or made large contributions to the family foundation.
The author cites a “pattern of financial transactions” that benefitted both the Clintons and their funders. He says Bill earned a staggering $48 million in speeches during Hillary’s four years as secretary of state, including 11 of the top-range windfalls. Their net worth is now estimated at between $100 million and $200 million, not bad for a couple Hillary claimed was “dead broke” in 2000.
Whether their Midas-haul riches are the result of honest or dishonest graft, it’s certainly graft. While both could legitimately command significant appearance fees, there seems little doubt that the soaring price of his speeches during her tenure at State was not a mere coincidence.
That’s Goodwin Rule No. 1 with the Clintons: There’s no such thing as a coincidence.
What Hillary did with that power is something Schweizer explores and, again according to reports from the book, which has not been released, he offers compelling examples of a quid pro quo.
And now she wants to be president to help “everyday Americans.” Imagine the cash that would generate!
Radio legend John Gambling asked me Tuesday why they do it, meaning why the Clintons always court trouble when, financially at least, they’re set for life. My answer speaks to their nature, and ours.
They do it because they get away with it. And they get away with it because we let them.
It’s time to stop the gravy train. The price of their brand of “public service” is more than America can afford. The accumulated burden of their greed is too much to bear.
Less than two weeks after she officially launched her campaign, it’s obvious that nothing has changed with them — and never will. It’s all scandal, all the time, and always will be. It’s who they are.
The gusher of money flowing their way also offers an explanation for the email scandal, in which Hillary claimed to have deleted more than 30,000 emails from her private server.
What did she know about money coming into the foundation? What did she know about who was paying her husband to speak? How much coordination was there?
She claims the emails she deleted were purely personal, and her lawyer says the server was “wiped clean.” That’s not something that can ever be said about their reputation.
It is Tammany without the charm.
Clintons ran Tammany-like money operation New York Post
They are the Clintons of Tammany, and they set their moral compass to the reckonings of George Washington Plunkitt, “The Sage” of that fabled Irish-American political machine.
More than a century ago, he laid out his philosophy to a biographer, calling it “A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics.”
Among Plunkitt’s gems: Tammany “does missionary work like a church, it’s got big expenses and it’s got to be supported by the faithful.”
He quickly helped families burned out of their houses because “it’s philanthropy, but it’s politics, too — mighty good politics. Who can tell how many votes one of these fires brings me? The poor are the most grateful people in the world, and, let me tell you, they have more friends in their neighborhoods than the rich.”
Then there’s this one: “Everybody is talkin’ these days about Tammany men growin’ rich on graft, but nobody thinks of drawin’ the distinction between honest graft and dishonest graft.”
Plunkitt insisted his immense wealth was the product of honest graft, adding, “I might sum up the whole thing by sayin’: ‘I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.’”
Well, what do you know — the line perfectly captures the Clinton credo, too. From their attempted pilfering of White House furniture to raking in gazillions from countries and companies that might want a government favor or two, they have spent their careers seeing their opportunities and taking a cut of the action.
Indeed, to judge from the reports about a new book called “Clinton Cash,” author Peter Schweizer reveals a scheme that would make Plunkitt blush with envy. Schweizer describes an inside-the-government, outside-the-government arrangement, where Hillary used her post as secretary of state to do favors for companies and foreign countries, which then paid good ol’ Bubba up to $500,000 for a speech or made large contributions to the family foundation.
The author cites a “pattern of financial transactions” that benefitted both the Clintons and their funders. He says Bill earned a staggering $48 million in speeches during Hillary’s four years as secretary of state, including 11 of the top-range windfalls. Their net worth is now estimated at between $100 million and $200 million, not bad for a couple Hillary claimed was “dead broke” in 2000.
Whether their Midas-haul riches are the result of honest or dishonest graft, it’s certainly graft. While both could legitimately command significant appearance fees, there seems little doubt that the soaring price of his speeches during her tenure at State was not a mere coincidence.
That’s Goodwin Rule No. 1 with the Clintons: There’s no such thing as a coincidence.
What Hillary did with that power is something Schweizer explores and, again according to reports from the book, which has not been released, he offers compelling examples of a quid pro quo.
And now she wants to be president to help “everyday Americans.” Imagine the cash that would generate!
Radio legend John Gambling asked me Tuesday why they do it, meaning why the Clintons always court trouble when, financially at least, they’re set for life. My answer speaks to their nature, and ours.
They do it because they get away with it. And they get away with it because we let them.
It’s time to stop the gravy train. The price of their brand of “public service” is more than America can afford. The accumulated burden of their greed is too much to bear.
Less than two weeks after she officially launched her campaign, it’s obvious that nothing has changed with them — and never will. It’s all scandal, all the time, and always will be. It’s who they are.
The gusher of money flowing their way also offers an explanation for the email scandal, in which Hillary claimed to have deleted more than 30,000 emails from her private server.
What did she know about money coming into the foundation? What did she know about who was paying her husband to speak? How much coordination was there?
She claims the emails she deleted were purely personal, and her lawyer says the server was “wiped clean.” That’s not something that can ever be said about their reputation.
It is Tammany without the charm.
Clintons ran Tammany-like money operation New York Post
