When the definitive post mortem of this dismal election is finally published, it should go something like this:
The Republican establishment was foolish; the Democratic establishment was ruthless. The Republicans fumbled around incompetently and spinelessly in the face of an unforeseen challenge; the Democrats willfully and intentionally did all they could to carry a corrupt politician over the finish line, forcing the American public to choose between one known liar and another. Let’s review the
facts:
- The FBI continues to investigate Hillary Clinton’s maybe-criminal abuse of the Clinton Foundation as a front for systematic influence-peddling and her maybe-criminal mishandling of our nation’s secrets. Neither of these scandals is new. They both predate the launch of her presidential campaign.
- Questions have swirled around the Clinton Foundation since Hillary was confirmed as secretary of state. Damaging evidence of outright influence-peddling — including evidence of large-scale donations made to the foundation as the State Department considered a crucial uranium deal — broke less than two weeks after her campaign announcement.
- On April 23, 2015, the New York Times published an extraordinary story detailing the amount of money that was funneled to the Clinton Foundation (and to Bill Clinton directly) as the State Department considered whether to sign off on the sale of “one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States” to a Russian-controlled corporation. The chairman of the corporation donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian investment bank promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton a whopping $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow. The Clintons violated an agreement with the White House to “publicly identify all donors” by failing to disclose the Uranium One contributions. Hillary’s State Department approved the deal.
- One month before the Uranium One story, as Clinton was preparing to announce her candidacy, the Times broke the news that still dominates the campaign today: Hillary “exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business.” Given the Clintons’ longstanding history of personal corruption, it should have been obvious to Democrats then that Hillary’s scandals were going to dog the party throughout the campaign, and, if she won, throughout her presidency. It would be a repeat of the 1990s, when an entire party was hijacked into relentlessly defending conduct that they would loudly condemn if it were attributed to any Republican.
- Instead, the party did far more than merely acquiesce in Hillary’s decision to run. It did virtually everything it could to guarantee her victory. Scandal-free progressive politicians such as Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden stood aside. Superdelegates signed on with Hillary en masse. The DNC put its thumb on the scales to such an extent that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was ultimately fired to appease the Sanders holdouts. When angry Trump voters were accusing incompetent Republicans of “rigging” the system against their man, ruthless Democrats were were actually rigging the system for Hillary.
The Democratic Establishment Has Enabled Hillary’s Corruption at Every Turn
you do realize your post is a partisan piece based on allegations and not proven facts don't you
"Allegations"?!? Let's review...
It is a
fact that Hitlery Clinton has a foundation called the Clinton Foundation
It is a
fact that Hitlery Clinton was Secretary of State
It is a
fact that the chairman of a Russian corporation made a $2.5 million donation to the Clinton Foundation
It is a
fact that that Russian Corporation was then granted 1/5 of all uranium from the U.S.
It is a
fact that Russia is our enemy
It is a
fact that uranium is used in the production of nuclear weapons
It is a
fact that Hitlery Clinton failed to report this donor per her agreement with the White House
It is a
fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was ultimately fired after emails revealed that she was part of a scandal to rig the primary in favor of Hitlery Clinton
You do realize that you sound like a partisan hack proclaiming
indisputable facts as "partisan allegations"?
so far all I've seen you write here are partial facts with a whole lot of iinnuendos so I ask you again what law did she violate ???
as for uranium
In a TV ad, Donald Trump falsely claims that Hillary Clinton “handed over American uranium rights to the Russians” as part of a “pay-to-play” scheme to get “filthy rich.” Clinton did not have the authority to unilaterally approve that deal.
As secretary of state, Clinton was one of nine voting members of the foreign investment committee in 2010 that approved the uranium deal, which was then approved by the president and passed through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ad,
titled “Corruption,” has aired on national cable and in 12 states this month, most heavily in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. The ad makes several shaky claims as it tries to link the income Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned since leaving political office with donations to the Clinton Foundation.
“The Clintons: from dead broke to worth hundreds of millions. So how did Hillary end up filthy rich?” the ad asks. “Pay to play politics. Staggering amounts of cash poured into the Clinton Foundation from criminals, dictators, countries that hate America.”
But the Clintons didn’t pocket money that was donated to the nonprofit Clinton Foundation, set up by Bill Clinton after his time as president. Instead, they made their money outside of office by giving speeches and writing books, as the
Fortune.com article the ad cites explains. That article doesn’t say anything about the foundation and puts the Clintons’ estimated net worth at $110 million (which isn’t “hundreds of millions,” the claim in the ad).
The foundation, which
says it has more than 330,000 contributors,
has been criticized for accepting foreign donations while Clinton was secretary of state, including from Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman, and for accepting Saudi Arabia’s money before and after her tenure. As the
Washington Post noted, some of those countries have “complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government.” But it’s a stretch to classify them as “countries that hate America.”
There are other examples of the citations in the ad not quite supporting the claims, but the most egregious is the uranium example. So we’ll start there.