August 22, 2016

Clinton Foundation Reports Present New Problems For Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest continue to drag down her presidential campaign. While Bill Clinton announced certain reforms last week, recent stories and editorials show that the these reforms may be too late.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a new report chronicling the Clinton Foundation’s history of compromising the Clintons. The story raised important questions and comes amid a new round of critical editorials about Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation dealings. See below for some of the most damning critique’s of Clinton Foundation cronyism:

Richmond Times-Dispatch: “But somebody ought to dig deeper into the connections between State and the foundation, especially now that we have learned Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s top aide at State, was moonlighting for the Foundation at the time.As always with the Clintons, it’s a safe bet that more is moving around in the dark than the public knows. And if she is ensconced once again in the White House, the Oval Office carpet will need regular shampooing to clean up the trail of slime that follows her everywhere she goes.”

Wall Street Journal: “If such fund-raising poses a problem when she’s President, why didn’t it when she was Secretary of State or while she is running for President? The answer is that it did and does, and they know it, but the foundation was too important to their political futures to give it up until the dynastic couple were headed back to the Oval Office”

Wall Street Journal: “If the Clintons were serious about their new ethical virtue, they wouldn’t merely limit donations. They’d shut the foundation down. The inherent conflict of interest in keeping it running has even some Democrats, such as former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, calling for exactly that. Mr. Rendell is old enough to recall the 1990s and that if there’s an ethical temptation anywhere, the Clintons will find it and compromise Hillary’s Presidency. Far from offering some new clean ethical slate, this latest foundation gambit ought to be a warning about a third Clinton term.”

Asbury Park Press: Nonetheless, the government and those who are a part of it, have an obligation to cut off opportunities for individuals, organizations and foreign governments to buy access, through foundations or other means. Given the widespread distrust of Hillary Clinton, it behooves her, and her husband, to do everything they can to ensure the line between their personal and professional duties and their charitable activities is clearly and transparently drawn. If Clinton is elected president, disbanding the foundation would be the best way to accomplish that.

New York Post: “Call it chutzpah or just utter tone-deafness: The Clintons are now promising that the family foundation will stop taking foreign and corporate donations if Hillary wins the White House. Translation: If you don’t want to use your personal checkbook (or find a US-based straw donor), get your bribes in now.”

New York Post: “Even closing the foundation now won’t stop past donors from redeeming their chits in a Hillary White House. But it would be a start on reassuring the nearly 60 percent of Americans who say Hillary Clinton is neither honest nor trustworthy.”