Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and unprecedented,” as high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been paid by nations or entities that had “matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk” when she was at State.

From 2001 through 2012 Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are lax.

How did it work? “Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by ‘close friends’ or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these countries.” Introductions were made, conversations had. “Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.”

Mr. Schweizer tells a story with national-security implications. Kazakhstan has rich uranium deposits, coveted by those who’d make or sell nuclear reactors or bombs. In 2006 Bill Clinton meets publicly and privately with Kazakhstan’s dictator, an unsavory character in need of respectability. Bill brings along a friend, a Canadian mining tycoon named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra wanted some mines. Then the deal was held up. A Kazakh official later said Sen. Clinton became involved. Mr. Giustra got what he wanted.

Soon after, he gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million. A year later Mr. Giustra’s company merged with a South African concern called Uranium One. Shareholders later wrote millions of dollars in checks to the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Giustra announced a commitment of $100 million to a joint venture, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.

It doesn’t end there. When Hillary was secretary of state, Russia moved for a bigger piece of the world uranium market. The Russians wanted to acquire Uranium One, which had significant holdings in the U.S. That meant the acquisition would require federal approval. Many had reservations: Would Russian control of so much U.S. uranium be in America’s interests? The State Department was among the agencies that had to sign off. Money from interested parties rolled into the foundation. The deal was approved. The result? “Half of projected American uranium production” was “transferred to a private company controlled” by Russia, which soon owned it outright.

What would a man like Vladimir Putin think when he finds out he can work the U.S. system like this? He’d think it deeply decadent. He’d think it weak. Is that why he laughs when we lecture him on morals?

Mr. Schweizer offers a tough view of the Clinton Foundation itself. It is not a “traditional charity,” in that there is a problem “delineating where the Clinton political machines and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins.” The causes it promotes—preventing obesity, alleviating AIDS suffering—are worthy, and it does some good, but mostly it functions as a middleman. The foundation’s website shows the Clintons holding sick children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan’s Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those who served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The Better Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards of accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.”

Yet I'm sure New York would still be happy to send her back to the Senate if she fails in her presidential run...

>yfw most voters do no real research

>yfw clinton wins entirely on her last name

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 10, 2015, 10:00:42 AM

Quote from: DAS B(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ on May 10, 2015, 09:59:32 AM

Yet I'm sure New York would still be happy to send her back to the Senate if she fails in her presidential run...

What does it matter as long as she doesn't become President? I don't give a fuck if she becomes a Senator as long as she's not the frickin' President.

I believe it was a joke about corruption in New York.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 10, 2015, 10:03:58 AM

Quote from: King pesto on May 10, 2015, 09:53:08 AM

>yfw most voters do no real research

>yfw clinton wins entirely on her last name

Or because she's a woman.

YouTube

http://www.bustle.com/articles/77961-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman-is-a-perfectly-valid-not-to-mention-smart

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/04/17/22064461/yes-you-should-vote-for-hillary-just-because-shes-a-woman

I really feel like this doesn't represent most voters at all, just the very vocal campus feminists and SJW bloggers.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 10, 2015, 10:13:41 AM

Quote from: King pesto on May 10, 2015, 10:10:36 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 10, 2015, 10:03:58 AM

Quote from: King pesto on May 10, 2015, 09:53:08 AM

>yfw most voters do no real research

>yfw clinton wins entirely on her last name

Or because she's a woman.

YouTube

http://www.bustle.com/articles/77961-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman-is-a-perfectly-valid-not-to-mention-smart

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/04/17/22064461/yes-you-should-vote-for-hillary-just-because-shes-a-woman

I really feel like this doesn't represent most voters at all, just the very vocal campus feminists and SJW bloggers.

Eh, lots of the people at my college are gonna vote Clinton just because she's a woman..

Keyword college

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 10, 2015, 10:21:16 AM

Quote from: King pesto on May 10, 2015, 10:19:19 AM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 10, 2015, 10:13:41 AM

Quote from: King pesto on May 10, 2015, 10:10:36 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 10, 2015, 10:03:58 AM

Quote from: King pesto on May 10, 2015, 09:53:08 AM

>yfw most voters do no real research

>yfw clinton wins entirely on her last name

Or because she's a woman.

YouTube

http://www.bustle.com/articles/77961-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman-is-a-perfectly-valid-not-to-mention-smart

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/04/17/22064461/yes-you-should-vote-for-hillary-just-because-shes-a-woman

I really feel like this doesn't represent most voters at all, just the very vocal campus feminists and SJW bloggers.

Eh, lots of the people at my college are gonna vote Clinton just because she's a woman..

Keyword college

wut

You should never take the political stances of college students seriously.

LOL

They're bringing out the big guns. So I'm supposed to believe the perspective of a guy writing a book about all of this? Ok then.

Yes, Hilary is corrupt. Even Obama has done a few shady things I'm sure. It comes with the territory. Point is she'd be a little bit less corrupt and shitty than any Republican candidates. I'd vote for her just to keep a Republican out of office. But she's a terrible choice.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 10, 2015, 01:00:04 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 10, 2015, 11:52:29 AM

LOL

They're bringing out the big guns. So I'm supposed to believe the perspective of a guy writing a book about all of this? Ok then.

Yes, Hilary is corrupt. Even Obama has done a few shady things I'm sure. It comes with the territory. Point is she'd be a little bit less corrupt and shitty than any Republican candidates. I'd vote for her just to keep a Republican out of office. But she's a terrible choice.

Peggy Noonan is a very well respected author and columnist.

Respected by...? I can just as easily say Hitler was. Widely respected man. It's pretty dn important who's respected by whom. Either way, I don't really care. This is another jab at Hilary by an author on WSJ which is a fucking joke in and of itself.

Quote

As for being a "little bit less corrupt", I think you're missing the significance here.

Not really, no. I know she's really corrupt. I don't need some article to tell me that.

Quote

Using her position as Secretary of State to secure deals for her foundation is some next-level comic book villain shit.

Far worse people have been presidents.

Bush Jr. Eisenhower. Reagan. Nixon.

Quote from: aTALLmidget on May 10, 2015, 12:20:39 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 10, 2015, 11:52:29 AM

LOL

They're bringing out the big guns. So I'm supposed to believe the perspective of a guy writing a book about all of this? Ok then.

Yes, Hilary is corrupt. Even Obama has done a few shady things I'm sure. It comes with the territory. Point is she'd be a little bit less corrupt and shitty than any Republican candidates. I'd vote for her just to keep a Republican out of office. But she's a terrible choice.

Oh bullshit "less corrupt". That's the biggest fucking joke I've heard. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear "Clinton" is "corruption", they're probably some of the most well known corrupt politicians today AND in recent history. To spout that any Republican would be more corrupt just because they're Republican is complete arrogance with a mix of ignorance. Voting for her just to keep a possibly far better candidate out of office is an extremely immature way to vote and totally damaging way to vote, too.

You're about as right wing as they come, so forgive me if I don't buy into your heavily biased post.

Republicans are a joke. They have a huge scandal every week and here the biggest hypocrites and liars around. There is no "far better" candidate in the Republican Party because they're all corrupt and shills for big business and just play the "traditional values" card to get all you morons to vote for them. As you can see some of the most anti gay Republicans are gay themselves. The pro gun Republicans are pro gun and play the underdog "Obama is a tyrant" card for the ignorant rednecks because they've received large amounts of money from gun companies.

To top it all off, the book this jagoff on the OP is selling is his view on what the Clintons did. He's taking the facts and twisting them to suit his agenda and bias.

Are the Clintons corrupt? Yes. But they're way better than having Republicans in charge, even if only marginally.