The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative
What the hell happened to Bill Clinton’s political savvy? This kind of shit should have waited until they had both retired from active politics. But greed won out and Hillary paid the price of being seen as grabbing for the cash with both hands while she campaigned for those less well off in society.
The report presumes that the pay for access line is true. Which overlooks another major motivation among the rich and powerful, which is showing off that you are rich and powerful. Rich Wall Street firms didn’t give her a ton of money to tell them stuff, and they wouldn’t have listened anyway. They gave her a ton of money to show off how rich they are, which has the extra desireable effect of impressing potential investors how big and important, solid, reliable, etc. etc.
And, by comparison, the Clinton Foundation probably did more substantial good for humanity in any given ten minutes than the Trump Foundation did in its entire existence! And that includes the great boon to mankind of producing two very large oil portraits of Il Douche.
Let’s not forget giving a home to a Tim Tebow helmet. Poor thing would have been sent to a shelter or just turned out in the street.
I’m not sure if there has been insufficient time, but it would seem that no one but the insane right media is so far reporting this:
It would seem that the Clinton Foundation was split into two organizations, the Foundation and the Global Initiative. The GI officially served as a “forum for people to make connections”, towards the goal of charitable acts, of course. After the campaign ended, most of the donors backed out and the Clintons are sitting it down.
I am curious now whether, when I went to look up the charity review of the Clintons’ foundation, and it seemed to check out, where that was the Foundation or the Global Initiative.
I can’t think of any legitimate reason for foreign governments to donate to this specific charity only during and right up to the end of the campaign, and for the Clintons to shut it down also along with the campaign, if it was not purely a mechanism for using foreign funds to campaign for President.
Can we all stop nominating foreign agents, please?
It’s an interesting fact: as time went on, the amount they received in speaking fees went up. In 2001, when Hillary was just a junior Senator, banks paid them a mere $125,000 for a speech. In 2008-2012, when Hillary was Sec. of State, Bill earned in the $200,000 range. And in 2014, when everyone thought Hillary was a shoe-in for President, one bank gave Bill $500,000 per speech. It seems that the more powerful Hillary became, the more the banks loved the melodious sound of Bill’s voice, and the more they were willing to pay him. (I’m sure it had nothing to do with trying to purchase influence within the expected future Hillary presidency.)
Indeed, we’ll be able to prove it shortly. Because since neither the banks that paid big bucks for speeches, nor the foreign governments that did the same, nor the for-profit education company that paid Bill $18 million to be an “honorary chancellor”, nor anyone else who poured money into their coffers were doing so with the intention of buying influence. Thus, they will all surely continue to provide money at the same rate now that it’s clear the Clintons won’t actually hold any office again. It’s definitely not possible that after Hillary lost the election, any of these corporations would suddenly lose interest in giving the Clintons tons of money.
If the Wall Street firms only wanted to show off that they’re super-rich and can give away lots of money, why not give the money to the starving children in Africa instead?
Eh, never mind. I’m sure there’s an innocent explanation.
Since the proof, apparently, lies thick upon the ground, why don’t you bring us some? You must have simply dozens of examples of an ex-President throwing his legislative weight around on behalf of some donor. Successfully would likely make a stronger case.
I mean, seems you are entirely convinced, and someone of your intellectual rigor would not be so convinced if you didn’t have solid and irrefutable proof. Don’t be shy, share it with us!
George Worthless Bush also was paid to make speeches. Big fucking whoop.
Then why close it? Why establish, to begin with, a second charity with such a nebulous mission, “to make connections”?
I far more wanted Clinton in the office than Trump, but let’s not pretend that the options we were given were wholesome and pure. Putin got a bunch of voters to sit out of the election. The Clintons bought their way into it.
If we had wanted to have a vote that wasn’t, in effect, China versus Russia, we would have had to have voted third party. (Which I did.)
:dubious: I think you might be a bit naive in imagining that the two possibilities are mutually exclusive. It’s not as though corporations and governments couldn’t want both to obtain influence with major political figures and to support a foundation that was high-profile because it was associated with major political figures.
Now that the Clintons are effectively mostly retired from public life, it wouldn’t surprise me that some donors would lose interest in supporting their deglamorized charity even if they had never hoped to get a dime’s worth of undue influence out of it.
Well, I talked about rock-solid proof and you delivered! Its the best reason you, personally, can think of so…case closed. Nailed that one, for sure.
The Clinton Foundation’s wrongdoings are greatly exaggerated, but the US is not the only country where public opinion matters when governments decide how to spend money.
The Clinton Foundation’s work is to a great extent independent on the political clout of Hillary, but her meteoric descent is still going to influence the efficiency of the Foundation. So better to move the charitable contributions elsewhere.
“Clinton got more money for speeches when she was a candidate for president” is only an accusation for people who don’t know anything about how booking speakers to talk to top level managers work.
George Bush, former President of the United States, was earning around $137k to make speeches. Bill Clinton, former President of the United States, was earning $500k to make speeches. Just saying “Well, they were both being paid to make speeches.” is disingenuous.
And what’s the best reason you, personally, can think of?
We’ve got one hypothesis in the thread, which fits and explains all the known facts. Suggest a second one, if you’ve got it.
George Bush made them when he’d retired from politics. Catch the difference there?
For Fuck’s sake Trump is tweeting for people to buy shoes from a company which has a big donor on the board of directors.
I suppose you’re also outraged about this very obvious crass “pay for play” as well right?
Is anyone outraged in this thread? Seems more like amused cynicism. Being better than Trump isn’t praiseworthy. The other side of the partisan coin is that Republicans will suddenly lose interest in investigating her important and oh so serious crimes against America. Unless they need a scapegoat, maybe.
No no, Obama is the scapegoat for when Trump can’t fulfill any of his promises, it’s all due to the awful state that Obama left the country in. Of course the state that Bush left the country and the middle east in is completely irrelevant to Obama’s pathetic failures /s
Well, you get what you pay for. Or, in the first case, you probably get a lot less than what you pay for.
Reported. Duplicate Thread.