Hillary Clinton

The Clinton Foundation's Dubious Foreign Dealings



Over the past few months, as Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has ramped up, we've seen a number of stories raise questions about the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments.

In February, The Washington Post reported that the foundation had "accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration." The next month, Rueters reported that the foundation had failed to disclose several foreign donors to its biggest program, in violation of an ethics agreement that had been made with the administration coinciding with Hillary Clinton's State Department tenure. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that, despite increased scrutiny of the foundation's foreign ties, the foundation would continue accepting donations from a half dozen foreign nations.

Expect these stories not only to continue but to intensify over the next few months. Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, a soon-to-be-released book on the Clinton family's foreign connections, purports to demonstrate "a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds," according to author Peter Schweizer.

According to The New York Times, which got an advance copy (more on that in a moment), Schweizer's book "asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton's State Department in return." Some specifics, via the Times:

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor's natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

On the surface, it doesn't look good.

But of course the book isn't out yet, so it's not clear exactly what Schweizer's got. But there are hints that he has the goods. One telling detail in the Times piece is that "major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author  to pursue the story lines found in the book." The fact that these organizations have agreed to such a deal probably means that they've seen some of the documentation Schweizer has, even beyond what's in the text of the book, and found it compelling. (Politico has more on the deals with news organizations.)

One thing this means is that the story isn't going to go away. Major news organizations, which have already been digging through the Clinton Foundation's foreign dealings, are going to follow up on and expand upon Schweizer's reporting.

And whatever that reporting turns up, the very fact that the story is in the news is going to reinforce the existing impression amongst many that the Clintons as vaguely corrupt, secretive, powerful elites who are frequently involved in legally and ethically dubious deals.

NEXT: Should the FDA Get Tougher on Homeopathic Remedies?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let me guess; the Clinton Foundation is just like any other NGO parasite?

  2. At this point it could be revealed that Hillary really did murder Vince Foster and she would still get the Democratic nomination. They have no other options beyond Hillary and liberalism is intellectually decomposing at this point. The Democrats literally have nothing to offer the country beyond “we are not Republicans and you should vote to show you are not an evil white male”. That is it. About 40% of the country is going to vote for her out of reflex. The only question is can the media convince an addition 11% that voting Hillary is necessary to show they are properly tolerant and gay affirming.

    1. “The Democrats literally have nothing to offer the country beyond “we are not Republicans ”

      Given most national Republicans that’s not to bad a strategy…

      1. So non-Socon, non “eevil rayciss” touchy-feely tolerant (right angle bracket) a functioning economy?

        Not that the repubs are really very good on the economy at all anyways, but the modern Dems are so batshit insane economically that the direction they’re pulling right now will lead to a catatonic collapse at some point.

        1. *catastrophic

        2. State-level GOPers seem to be getting better at the economy.

        3. What about Chaffee?

    2. I am archly amused that what the anarchists of a century ago failed to do the state they is savagely doing to itself.

      100+ years ago, there was a sizeable faction of anarchists who believed in the propaganda of the deed. You shoot an archduke or a commissioner of the police, and the proletariat would see that the state was weak and be encouraged, while the people selling out their classes to work for the state would quake with fear and be discouraged.

      Of course, it blew up in their faces and set our cause back centuries.

      But now the state is so full of vile & oppressive people, and these people are so vicious in seeking and holding office that men of ability who love their families and have a healthy attitude towards their lives are recoiling from elected or public office. The state is deprived of talented people who have a degree of prudence and intelligence.

      And with each passing day, we more and more people are losing their attachment to the government. They no longer see the government as being something they are connected to, but as an alien and malignant external force.

      Sadly, things will almost have to get worse before they will get better.

      It’s a pity those assholes took up bomb-throwing instead of focusing on earning a living.

    3. The Democrats literally have nothing to offer the country beyond “we are not Republicans

      I’m not sure what Republicans can do about it, but I think they underestimate the pull of that particular argument. I know people who think Hillary is awful, but will vote for her because they believe that any possible Republican is automatically worse.

      1. That seems to be the ethos. Voting for a Republican is basically akin to joining the klan or something; you get an automatic invitation to the Koch brothers legion of doom and a free membership to the Rape Apologists of America.

        The rationalization they make for Hillary as the lesser evil is… fascinating. It’s a remarkable spectacle really, the sight of a Democrat saying “but at least we’re sane” even as foam pours out of his mouth while he defecates in the street in broad daylight while wearing a straight jacket.

        1. Then why don’t all the Republicans just join the Democrats, & nobody’ll be able to tell them apart?

          1. Dr. Seuss was so far ahead of his time.

    4. I can almost imagine a case where Hillary doesn’t want to be president or even run for president so long as she can convince foreign donors she might run for president. That would make her a world class troll.

      But I can’t actually imagine any case where Hillary doesn’t actually think it’s her turn to sit in the oval office and send Bill on charity missions.

    5. Mark Simone this AM brought up a possibility I hadn’t considered: that Bill DeBlasio is running for president, as evidenced by his showing up in places like Iowa.

    1. What difference at this point does it really make?

      1. + 2 years

  3. The fact that the NYT even ran this story, let alone made a deal with Schweizer to run more stories based on his reporting, leads me to be mildly optimistic that HILLARY! is going to get the intensive raking over the coals she so richly deserves.

    1. According to Rush’s show today the NYT ‘reported’ on the book from the angle of ‘this is fodder for the GOP’ rather than ‘scandalous news about Clinton’s foundation!’

      1. That’s better than them ignoring it to be sure.

        1. Maybe. But remember the Clinton’s #1 way for dealing with scandal is to make it seem like it’s just yet another charge by a right wing cabal bent on attacking them.

          1. Also to reinforce your point, at this point the best thing the clintons have going for them is everybody already knows they’re crooked.

            1. In a twisted way they’re libel proof

          2. But part of the strategy is usually pointing to the fact that the media plays along with their deflections by pretending that the scandal du jour isn’t really news, and thus they don’t write about them except to say things like “this is old news”, “this is a big nothingburger”, etc.

            1. And if it’s reported by the Times as ‘right wing group alleges….and GOP candidates are expected to attack Clinton using the charges from a new book from right wing think tank Y…’ Then that’s ok with Hillary’s team

    2. Yep. No way NYT goes in on this unless they are sure there’s some actual substance to the allegations.

    3. If the Dems were smart they would be praying right now that Hillary falls and breaks a hip before the campaign starts. I know they don’t have anyone else, but they’d better be digging someone up if things do not go very smoothly for Hillary. I mean, I know things were like that for Obama, but it doesn’t look like Hillary is going to get off so easy.

      There’s just no way this woman makes it through a grueling campaign where she is held under the spotlight. She’s too old, unhealthy, and entitled to make it, let alone even 4 years as potus.

  4. Second….and I also think this has the potential to sink her ship.

  5. Ack…

  6. Vaguely?

    1. I took it to mean that most voters only have a vague understanding of who the Clintons are and will remain uninterested in developing a full understanding even were she to pick Cthulu as her running mate.

      1. It’s Cthulhu, you nonbeliever.

        Don’t worry, you’ll be eaten last as punishment.

  7. “a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,”

    I’m going to have to put air shocks on my fainting couch.

  8. Battleaxe! 2016

    1. Maybe they should have made her logo a big old battleaxe?

  9. But…ovaries!

    1. Maybe at one time. But, no ovaries there now.

  10. “Hillary 2016! Because it’s time for a gash!”

  11. the very fact that the story is in the news is going to reinforce the existing impression amongst many that the Clintons as vaguely corrupt, secretive, powerful elites who are frequently involved in legally and ethically dubious deals.

    HILLARY ’16! Let our ascension to banana republic status continue apace!

  12. You can’t say the Clintons aren’t taking care of their supporters. You support them politically, and if things don’t work out, there is always a comfortable job available at the foundation or some other front organization. It’s like ACORN, except with caviar and champagne.

  13. It’s a scandal a week with this awful person, and has been for quite a while. That on top of the many other scandals she and her husband have been involved in.

    See what happens when you lower your standards, America? You wake up next to a repulsive blob of a woman, who is incompetent at sex and breakfast.

    1. It works to their favor that every week she’s charged with a new scandal. It creates scandal fatigue, a sense of ‘oh some people just hate everything that poor woman does!’ It worked for her husband at least.

      1. Her husband had a lovable rogue kind of personality, though, with loads of personal charisma and charm. Hillary has none of that. She’s a shrill, aloof, unlikable woman and virtually everything she does reinforces the idea that she truly believes she’s of a better class than we hoi polloi. Obviously, that doesn’t matter for a lot of diehard progs, but I think it’s going to be EXTREMELY hard to motivate the kind of turnout that got Obama elected twice. Who the hell is so highly motivated to vote for Hillary that they’re going to be at the voting booth come hell or high water? Radfems, that’s about it, and though they are noisily well-represented in the media their actual numbers are small.

        1. Bill was much more lovable seeming I guess, but she’s a woman with the chance to make history!

        2. She’s “likeable enough”! The Obama Himself said so!

          1. That line said so much about both of them, didn’t it?

            1. What is better than a non-compliment compliment to a rival?

              1. I think it showed that behind his all smiles Obama was prettily quick to anger, and the very opening provided for the line spoke to Hillary’s charisma deficet.

                1. No, it showed how he triangulates. He never did get angry. He just couldn’t give her a real compliment.


        3. The more I learn about Hillary, the more I feel there’s not much to hold against Bill. I already cannot blame in the least for cheating on her (and I say that with complete sincerity). One can say he shouldn’t have lied about it, but that was then and this is now, and if it happened now, after all we’ve learned about Hillary, he probably could just come out and say “do you really blame me”, and who would have the heart to say yes?

      2. It was different with him, as he has some political skill. And he was in trouble during a boom economy not during this weird stasis we’re in now.

        I think people don’t have scandal fatigue as much as they have Clinton fatigue. Please, God, just go away.

        1. If Hillary’s swing through Iowa last week is an indicator, she is beyond bad as a campaigner. She was less than 30 mile from where I work, and I didn’t know anything about it until the day after and that was a negative Facebook post. The local news channel didn’t have a single item regarding her visit on their website. And the TV coverage area includes mildly a blue mixed-economy county next to a true blue county centered on a university town.

          She was just plain fucking invisible for the week she was here. The caucuses are going to crucify her if she doesn’t change up.

          1. She was terrible last time around. Heck, Obama would’ve been in trouble with anything other than a legendarily crappy field. The last few elections have not been good for America, not just in who won, but in who was running.

          2. She was in Iowa last week? If you’re talking about the same very blue University town I’m thinking of, that’s where I work, and didn’t hear a thing about it.

      3. Sorry, Bo but that dog ain’t gonna hunt much longer.

        And it only worked for Bill because there was only one major scandal. And he used hos bombing campaign against the Serbs to take attention away from it at the right time. A candidate with no finger on the trigger isn’t giong to have that luxury.

        Sandal fatigue will lead donors to seek an alternative for fear that she’ll get “Roberts”-ed in the general and another, bigger scandal will cause the to lose on a grand scale. They can’t fathom that thought with a couple of SC appointments probably going to the next President.

        1. One scandal for Bill? Hahahaha. That guy had his advisor whacked, fired the WH staff illegally, stole the WH furniture, loathed the military, had several extramarital affairs, raped some girls, ad infitum



          2. You might want to revisit that time period with some people that were adults then, not from the fantasyland of your own mind. There was only one real scandal that Bill Clinton was attacked over: sex. He lied under oath to protect the sex he had that was to be used as evidence of a pattern of sexual misconduct and abuse.

            The staff? Nobody really cared much then. The furniture thing was after he left. Nobody accused him of hating the military…especially when he gleefully signed DADT. The Vince Foster thing was so far underground that it never made the news back then. Remember, the internet wasn’t nearly as ubiquitous then and the 24-hour news cycle was pretty much CNN and nothing else.

            You might want to shut your stupid little mouth and stop trying to tell people that lived through the time what happened…according to your bullshit sources. You were what,in kindergarten when Clinton was elected? Forgive me if I’m skeptical of your assessment of the media portrayal of him from that time seeing as you were probably still watching Romper Room.*

            *Or your retarded-ass generation’s version of Romper Room.

            1. The one thing that surprises me about people looking back at Clinton (this mostly from people who weren’t adults at the time, though not just them, shockingly) is that they forget how much he lurched to the right in after the 1994 elections. And mostly stayed there. After all, “the era of big government is over!” For six years, Clinton acted more Republican than some people with the name. Romney comes to mind.

            2. It’s not like ancient history, though you seem unaware of most of it. I get that some people have ‘missing years’ sometimes.

              1. All your years are missing years.

                Sloopy is right there was really only one thing he got gored over.

                1. It’s hilarious you think he was ‘gored’ by that charge, it ended up going poof in the GOP’s face. That’s kind of my point: the Right wheeled out scandal after scandal on Clinton, in the end none really stuck because they created the very scandal fatigue and boy-cries-wolf the Clinton’s wanted to spin it all.

                  1. The only scandal people were knowledgeable of was the sex thing.

                  2. Not really. He was pretty much a lame duck after that all broke, even more than he kind of was, anyway (moving to do rightwing things to forestall the GOP Congress from getting political initiative kept him in office, but it’s not exactly driving the ship of state).

                  3. I kinda have to agree with Bo here. I am in my late 40s and I lived through the Clinton years. Sloopy is correct over the reality of what happened at the time. The only one pushing the Vince Foster thing was G Gordon Lilly. If you jumped on that train you were treated like a 9/11 truther today. And the rest of the scandals just never got any traction. After Whitewater died the right just kept throwing random shit out there trying to get something to stick and when the Monica thing happened people were just tired of it.

                    Looking back at the evidence today, Whitewater should have killed Hillary’s political career. Along with her “brilliant” stock trading abilities.

                  4. Women wanted to sleep with Bill. Yeah, there were sex scandals, but all the women wanted him, so he was forgiven for his sexual addiction.

                    The rest of the stuff was not on the public radar.

                    Hillary’s email issue though actually is on the public radar. And, taking money from foreign countries while you are Sec of State, that is not the ‘scandal’ of a former aide committing suicide. Everyone gets that deleting 30,000 emails and collecting money from foreign countries are, probably connected, and shows something really bad happened.

                    I think she is toast.

                    But, she might win the nomination, she might even win the election. But, I don’t see her serving a full term. Health or one scandal too many and she gets impeached.

                    Her lies though are almost comical. They are so egregious. “I was named after Edmund Hillary’, ‘All my grandparents were immigrants’, ‘I was under sniper fire on the tarmac at Sarajevo Airport’….all three so absurdly easy to check on. As a primo liar friend of mine said, ‘Dude, doesn’t she know, you only lie about stuff no one can check up on’.

                  5. What shocked me was when David Brudnoy turned anti-Bill, “that awful, awful man” after having previously pooh-pooed the idea that any kind of sex scandal had any significance, esp. when he wasn’t very anti-Bill to begin w. It was so unlike Bruds that it showed there was enormous power to that bandwagon-to-Hell.

  14. She’s corrupt but her opponents want to enslave poor people and don’t believe in science!

    1. You left our that they’re all racists and believed in forced pregnanies.

  15. Here is hoping this book and her email practices will converge and convince an all too trusting main stream media to pull their head out and do some real investigative journalism.

    1. Here is hoping this book and her email practices will converge and convince an all too trusting main stream media corrupt Department of Justice to pull their head out and do some real investigative journalism appoint a Special Prosecutor.


      1. I’ll start holding my breath for that now. Somebody be sure to call the ambulance for me when I pass out.

        1. I’m not holding my breath for either. But I do hope there is a sysadmin out there with a special backup he’s willing to share. Not very likely I know. But more likely than the other two.

  16. A lot of people (including many denizens of this here blargh) assured me Obama would go down in history as a little-revered one term President.
    Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

    1. John has never gotten anything right.

      1. He gets at least 8% right, which is more than you can say.

        1. You don’t want to compare my record to any of the goldbug/wingnuts here.

          I win easily.


            John smacked your shit at predicting the midterms that’s for sure.

            1. You’re an idiot. I got the midterms right by saying they would be right in line with statistical norms – which is true. Dems actually overperformed in key swing states like North Carolina.

              John guaranteed a Romney win (I was right) and an Obama war in Syria (I said he wouldn’t).

              John refused to believe polls. He is like any Team Red asshole. Data is meaningless to him.

              1. I got the midterms right by saying they would be right in line with statistical norms

                This could not be more meaningless if it didn’t have any words at all.

                1. It’s cute how Buttplug pretends to understand what ‘statistical norms’ are. Like a little kid playing at karate.

                2. No, John and other idiots here were saying that Dems would get hammered by 20-30% because of Obamacare.

                  Exit polls showed Obamacare was statistically irrelevant as an issue. The same 40% who hated it in 2012 also hated it in 2014.

                  2012 – when Democrats GAINED Senate seats and kept the White House. Same 40%.

                  No change.

                  Do you finally understand?

                  1. Do you finally understand?

                    I understand that you’re a moron, but little else has been elucidated today.

                  2. So 40% = ‘irrelevant’ to a non-presidential midterm because of results in a presidential midterm. Thanks for the retarded perspective, retard.

                3. Of course, all of our comments are out there for retrieval.


          2. Comedic gold

          3. So, gold is $300-$600 an oz that you said it would be now?

            I have one gold filing and a wedding ring and shan’t get anything else gold, ever. But you weird hatred of people who buy a metal and your staggeringly bad prediction about how much paper money people will trade for it say a heck of a lot more about you than anyone else.

            1. I said $700 when it was $1900. It is over halfway there.

              The Inflationista crowd is the most wrong of you Peanuts.



              There won’t be any inflation (2% or more) for years. Maybe decades.


              2. I said $700 when it was $1900. It is over halfway there.

                And not going down.

                There won’t be any inflation (2% or more) for years

                Well as long as the feds rig the numbers, then of course there won’t appear to be.

                1. Just don’t buy food and there isn’t any!

                  1. Hell, I bought a gallon of milk for $3.15 today. Corn and wheat are in bear markets.

                    The only food item that is at a high is beef.

                    You Peanuts regurgitate the same Team Red bullshit daily.


                    2. A ‘bear market’ means it is 20% below the last peak and hasn’t come up 20% off the last bottom. SO IT’S STILL REALLY FUCKING HIGH.

                    3. June 11 (Bloomberg) — Wheat futures entered a bear market and corn fell to a four-month low as the U.S. government said global supplies will be bigger than analysts estimated.

                      World wheat inventories by the end of May will reach 188.61 million metric tons, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a report. That compares with last month’s estimate of 187.4 million and 188.08 million forecast by analysts in a Bloomberg survey. The agency also increased its estimate for domestic reserves and said global corn stockpiles will rise to a 15-year high.

                      Rising grain supplies are helping to keep global food costs in check, with the United Nations saying that world prices fell in May for the second straight month. The Standard & Poor’s GSCI Agricultural Index of eight crops fell for a sixth straight week through June 6, the longest slump since October 2011.

              3. If you say $700 and it is currently $1300 believe it or not that means you were WRONG! If you actually had any money to invest and you shorted gold, or did some out of the money options, you would have lost your money

                I know that is hard for you to understand because actual effects don’t mean much to people on the left.

            2. Apparently buttplug thinks everyone who isn’t a fabian socialist like him stacks gold bars, ammunition, and and canned food ceiling high in their basement or something?

              If I tell him I think Yellen should raise the fucking rates already he’d probably accuse me of wanting to go back to the gold standard. I guess the lesson we learn form him is, if you’re losing an argument, just stop arguing with the people who are beating you, and start arguing with someone else who isn’t even in the room.



    2. “Two things are infinite, as far as we know ? the universe and human stupidity.”

      -A Great Astronomer

    3. Yes, but then the GOP nominated the Obamney and the rest is history.

      1. This. Obama could’ve been a one-term wonder if the GOP had not nominated The Worst Candidate Ever (well since Dewey at least).

        1. No way. Whoever the GOP nominated made no difference to the outcome of that presidential election. People were voting either vote Obama or not-Obama, and had already made up their minds, and it was just a matter of finding out how many there were of each. The pro-Obama vote was mostly, “We better elect the niggerblack guy again or it’ll mean he was a failure, which’ll mean none of his race will get any respect again for a generation.” The anti-Obama vote was, “This guy is so awful, nobody else who a major party would nominate could possibly be as bad.”

    4. Not to pass myself off as a Nostrdamus, but I was sure the moment he would be remembered as a demigod. The mere fact that he is the first black president (and of course we mean ‘real’ black, not Republican black) guaranteed that the media wasn’t going to let any other narrative prevail; the hagiography will probably be in grade school textbooks with a few years, and criticism of him or the belief that he was a bad president will be looked upon as akin to criticizing Rosa Parks.

      Some day, when you tell your kids or grandkids you didn’t vote for Obama, they’ll look at you like you just said the N-word. That’s my prediction of his ‘legacy.’

      1. That’s exactly the dynamic that was operating in 2012, more so than in 2008. Being fired would’ve looked much worse than not being hired.

  17. It’s over man, it’s over… she got the endorsement of (previously known as) ACORN. We should go ahead bow down now.

  18. You know who else had dubious foreign dealings…

    1. Trotsky?

    2. Ser Jorah Mormont?

    3. the United Fruit Company?

    4. Major League Baseball?

    5. Edward Longshanks?

    6. Pompey the Great?

    7. Sen. Bob. Menendez?

      1. I snickered

    8. Me, when I play Civ 5 BNW as Venice?

    9. Leopold II of Belgium?

    1. At this point, I really shouldn’t be surprised by anything but….seriously? The fuck?

    2. Misleading title, that’s $50B in unfrozen assets.

      But since it is governments we’re talking about, whenever they let you have your money it is a bonus.

      1. That is how lies spontaneously generate in wingnut world. The $50 billion will be US taxpayer money on talk radio later.

        1. Later? It was implied right here right now.


        3. As opposed to leftwingnut world, where they just make shit up clean out of thin air. I

      2. Aha…shame on me for not clicking the link I guess

      3. Ah, I see. Is that left over from the hostage crisis, or is that more recent?

        1. It is from the economic sanctions Obama put on them in the last several years.

          Really dude. Keep up.

    3. Signing bonus instead of dhimmi tax? I am disappoint Papaya.

      1. It’s jizya. I’m not joking.

    4. a plan to release tens of billions of frozen Iranian funds.

      You got me to click on that bullshit “story”.

      DAMN YOU!

      1. Wow, that is stunningly dishonest, equating unfreezing funds with US might pay. But when I saw even he put that ‘might’ in there I foresaw something fishy

      2. Lighten up, girls. I think it was meant semi-jokingly.

        1. Personally, I’m disappointed that I’m not getting some of these frozen assets.

          1. You should have petitioned for a Letter of Marque and Reprisal against the IRC.

            1. My first job was with some Iranian ex-pats (who, back then, referred to themselves as Persians). So I have a connection worth, I dunno, maybe $100 million?

        2. I think it was meant semi-jokingly.

          No. PapayaSF is a deep-fried BratFart Wingnut.com reader.


          2. Seriously, though, i’m getting worried. You should really think about getting back on your meds.


    5. Conservative ‘alt’ media is as full of shit as the main-stream media.


    fake scandals always stick!


      Lick them cankles!

      1. Hil-Dog is bad enough that you shouldn’t have to gin up fake scandals to beat her.




    2. Taking donations from foreign governments that you are in the process of dealing with as secretary of state is a fake scandal? You must be all warm and cozy, being snugged so deeply up Hillary’s asshole. I’d say it must smell bad, but given your ceaseless devotion to her I bet her feces actually tastes like milk chocolate to your mouth.

  20. So let’s add up everything about Hillary. She is:

    1. Inaccessible to the plebes because she’s always surrounded by a wall of stonefaced armed men

    2. She is painfully embarssing when speaking off the cuff and pretending to be an actual, normal human being

    3. She and her husband are secretive and have a long history of unseemly behavior and outright scandals

    4. She’s 68, owes her entire career in politics to her husband, and has no coherent ideological view of the world because she’s always evolving based on what’s expedient.

    I just don’t see how having a vagina makes up for all of the above and gets her enough independent votes to win against a GOP candidate that isn’t Jeb Bush.

    1. So what you’re saying then is that the Republicans are likely going to nominate Jeb Bush?

      1. Jeb Bush’s biggest donor will be the Clinton foundation.

    2. How many similar points could have been tallied against Obama in 08/12?

      1. Bo’s right.

        There were plenty of excellent reasons to vote against Obama in 2008 and 2012.

        Progressive idiots didn’t pay any attention to them then, and there’s no reason to think they’ve gotten any smarter now.

        Hopefully the swing voters have wizened up, though.

        1. Zing! That didn’t turn out so well for poor Bo.

        2. Bo’s right

          /makes note on calendar

        3. Bo’s not right, and almost never is. Prog idiots will always be idiots. Obama won re-election because he was up against a worse candidate than McCain, who was a lot of the reason he got elected in the first place. Many republicans who voted McCain wouldn’t for Romney.

          1. That’s my point Cyto (you can miss them as fast as I can make them apparently) who the GOP nominates is just as if not more important than the deficits that any given Dem candidate can have listed against them.

            1. How many similar points could have been tallied against Obama in 08/12?

              Where the fuck did you mention the GOP in here?

            2. It likely doesn’t matter who they nominate. Take Rand Paul for example. He’s a racist, homophobic anti-woman anti-vaxxer Kentucky redneck. End of story. Doesn’t matter that he is actually none of those things and has given no one good reason to believe he is any of those things. He opposes federal coercion, that got him the anti-vaxxer label; he said gays and straights should have the same rights, that him the homophobe one.

              Once the media is done reconstructing the GOP candidate in their own straw image, they’ve likely already given most independents the bad first impression necessary to turn them off the candidate for good. People are shallow, they vote for labels rather than policies, and first impressions are what’s most important. Short of a massive ground-breaking blow to Clinton of unprecedented proportions, this election is a forgone conclusion.

        4. It’s the middle, which is quite large, that they’re losing. People who aren’t on the dole are getting a little antsy about the future, though not all of them fully understand why.

      2. Not many. He was a young blank slate with great oratory skill when speaking off the teleprompter. People wanted something they could pretend was an alternative to the Bush years, and he delivered. She does not have that advantage.

  21. The Wall Street Journal reported that, despite increased scrutiny of the foundation’s foreign ties, the foundation would continue accepting donations from a half dozen foreign nations.”

    Does that mean they intend to continue to accept donations from foreign nations–even if and after Hillary becomes President?

    1. Why shouldn’t the Foundation?

      Remember only in Wingnut World will those Saudi donations “prove” Hillary hates women as much as they do.


      2. Remember only in Wingnut World will those Saudi donations “prove” Hillary hates women as much as they do.

        But if a Repub congressman speaks to the American motherfucking Red Cross in the same motherfucking room where David Duke and his circus of worthless pawns will speak later, it’s prof positive that all Repubs are irredeemably racist and hateful, Mia Love’s election be damned.

      3. Yeah, why shouldn’t the President of the United States be on the payroll of a foreign government?

        If you’re an idiot, you ask questions just like that.

      4. Not wanting the taxpayers to pay for abortions and birth control for every woman in the country = woman-hating.

        Accepting money from Saudi Arabia = perfectly legit.

        Who’s the wingnut here, Buttplug?

  22. Does that mean they intend to continue to accept donations from foreign nations–even if and after Hillary becomes President?

    Look- all that money is kept in a tin box in the basement. Totally separate.

    1. Which nations are they going to continue to accept donations from?

      Is it Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or Yemen?

      The Clinton Foundation was accepting donations from all of those countries before–apparently when Hillary of Secretary of State.

      I believe Qatar is a direct supporter of Hamas, too! Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea get paid by the same people who finance Hamas. Isn’t that a peach?

      When Bill Clinton got caught red-handed accepting money from foreign donors, didn’t he give the money back?

      Why does Hillary have to be so evil all the time?

      1. AL Gore was shaking down the Buddhist monks – remember his “no controlling legal authority” defense?

      2. Why does Hillary have to be so evil all the time?

        Is this like some kind of koan or something? I must meditate and get back to you.

      3. “Why does Hillary have to be so evil all the time?”

        Because if she doesn’t continue to feed The Fire God fresh souls of her victims, he will strip her of her Evil Magic powers and she will return to the pile of dust from which she was animated?

        I mean, i thought that was obvious.

        1. Seriously, though!

          She could just cruise to the Democrat nomination–but no!

          She’s gotta take donations from foreign governments–while she’s the Secretary of State.

          Watching Hillary in the public eye is like watching a vampire struggle not to suck the blood out of some virgin’s neck.

          She can’t stop herself.

          I mean, if you don’t want to disqualify yourself from being President because you accepted donations from foreign governments while you were the Secretary of State, there’s an easy way to do that.

          …but she can’t do it!

          She HAS to be evil. It’s like the story about the scorpion and the frog, you know?

          It’s in her nature.

    2. Why not? The Supreme Court says it’s perfectly legal ( or at least anonymous).

  23. President Lady MacBeth will be the first resident of the throne to be inaugurated while under Federal indictment. But it really won’t matter since we should be amazed if voter turnout even cracks 20%. She’ll be President with about 10.2% of the eligible vote and in typical media fashion 99% of them will reside in 7 cities in Ohio. At least the 4th Century Romans had the arrogance to openly sell the Emperor’s job to the highest bidder. We’re doing the same thing but pretending we’re not.

  24. Judging from all the evidence, & I’m serious about this, I suspect that it may be a requirement for being very successful in politics to at least skate on the edge of serious felonies, & best if you can definitely commit some w/o getting caught. There’s likely some truth to the reverse causality, i.e. that power corrupts, but it also seems to be highly likely that corruption empowers.

  25. Seriously! Those Haitians are probably pouring money into the Clinton campaign!

  26. I am so shocked. The Clintons think the laws everyone else must live by do not apply to them? Who would have dreamed this would be possible. They have always been so honest and transparent… said the Easter Bunny to the Tooth Fairy.

  27. This latest scam of the Clintons makes their 90s White House quid pro quo look like, (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron), penny ante treason.

    While Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, the couple pocketed billions in “pay to play.” The multifarious vectors of transaction and the massive, disproportionate gains are prima facie evidence of the crime. Why else would so many pay so much for so little?

    (The clintons’ appetite for money and power is insatiable. Like laboratory rats, put enough of the goodies in front of these two and they will eat themselves to death.)

    The Clintons have a long history of selling out this country to the enemy, often in plain sight. For eight years, the Clintons methodically, seditiously and with impunity auctioned off America’s security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

    And they are selling out the country in plain sight today with the biggest cover and slush fund of all time: The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation? which brings us full circle and explains why Hillary Clinton chose to scrub the server and risk being charged with ?obstruction of justice. The alternative is a capital offense.

    We put these two miscreants back in power at our own peril. And our children’s.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.