Don’t You Dare Follow The Money!
Politics Joan Swirsky, Featured Writer
April 14, 2008
 

It’s been 34 years since "Deep Throat” advised Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (as documented in their book, "All the Presidents Men”) to "follow the money” in the Watergate case that resulted in President Nixon’s ignominious resignation.

 

In rooting out political corruption, that advice still holds, one of the latest examples being the payment schedule that Democrat New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught on tape trying to negotiate with his prostitute of choice.

 

But Spitzer’s self-destructive, career-destroying behavior, like Nixon’s, is small potatoes compared to the filthy-lucre trail of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

 

In reviewing only a small number of the shady deals both Bill and Hillary have made over the years, it should be clear to any sane American that entrusting Hillary with the U.S. presidency will:

 

▪ Threaten our national security.

▪ Bankrupt our domestic policies.

▪ Contaminate every treaty and trade deal with questions about their legality.

▪ Mire our system in four or eight more years of sleazy scandals.  

 

As Grace Vuoto of The Washington Times reminds us: "Mrs. Clinton is not the innocent victim of Mr. Clinton's excesses that she pretends to be…[she] is and always has been Mr. Clinton's willing accomplice in his scandals.”

 

Chinagate

In a riveting article, New York Times best-selling author Richard Poe says:

 

"When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States…how did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.”

 

"Federal investigators,” Poe continues, "later concluded that China made off with the `crown jewels’ of our nuclear weapons research…probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.” The result: "China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.”

 

In short order, defense contractors, eager to sell technology to China, poured millions of dollars into Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign. So grateful were the recipients that "Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton's way.”

 

How did this malevolent – I call it traitorous – scheme work? According to The Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, author of "The China Threat," Clinton received funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them the Riadys from Indonesia; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton's front man, but when investigators began probing the Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.

 

What followed were the arrests, conviction, fines, and also escapes to foreign countries of the above people. John Huang pleaded guilty in 1999, after which President Clinton rewarded him with an appointment to deputy assistant secretary for international economic affairs at the Commerce Department.

 

"Meanwhile,” says Poe, "Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.” At the same time, I might add, that Clinton was slashing our intelligence and military budgets!

 

I have two questions: What else has Bill Clinton – and his former co-president Hillary – promised to China? And which other nations or individuals have they made promises to that either (1) threaten our national security, or (2) lard their personal coffers with mountains of ill-begotten cash?

 

If Hillary knew of all this, then she is de facto unfit, both morally and in terms of patriotism, to lead our country. If she didn’t know – when the rest of the world did – then she is too clueless – actually stupid – to lead our country!

 

Tax-Return-Gate

Last week, the Clintons made public their tax returns from 2000-2006, which revealed that the ex-president made at least $8 million from foreign sources.

 

▪ Why were the 2007 returns withheld?

 

▪ What do the Clintons not want the American public to know about the sources of their wealth?

 

▪ And by the way, who exactly loaned Hillary that $5 million for her campaign – and was it in yuans, riyals, or dollars?

 

Their tax returns revealed that the Clintons gave $10.2 million of the $109 million they raked in to charity. Which one? None other than The Clinton Foundation!

 

"The Clintons,” says a Wall St. Journal editorial, "can thus use the foundation for, er, strategic giving, such as the $100,000 it donated last year to a local South Carolina library – the day after Mrs. Clinton debated in that key primary state.”

 

Only a few months ago – on Super Tuesday in February – the Clintons presumed the woman David Limbaugh has called "Hillary the entitled” would sew up the nomination and be the next U.S. president. They thought that the mega-bucks deals they have made over the years with God-knows-which-countries – the better to further their "globalist” agenda – were already set in stone.

 

But now the nomination looks like it will go to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who leads handily in both popular and electoral votes. But if not, what else have the Clintons promised?

 

▪ More nuclear secrets to our enemies?

 

▪ Access to their media puppets to propagandize their nefarious goals?

 

▪ The promise of pushing through "globalist” votes in their favorite world body, the anti-American United Nations?

 

Dubai-Gate
In December, to avoid damaging Hillary’s presidential campaign with conflict-of-interest charges, Bill Clinton severed his ties with Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund LP, the group owned by supermarket billionaire Ron Burkle. The group had already paid Clinton $15 million for being a "rainmaker” in opening doors to wealthy investors around the world, and his buyout was reported to be $20 million.

 

Clinton is one of three owners of the fund, the others being Burkle and the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. The Wall St. Journal says, "the activities of sovereign wealth funds – giant pools of money controlled by foreign governments – have become a campaign issue, as the funds have made a spate of multibillion-dollar investments in…corporate giants…”

 

Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris asks: "So how much of Bill's earnings that came from Burkle really came from the Emir's petrodollars? How much did Bill get from the Emir and what did he do for it? The tax returns don't say and the Clintons aren't talking.”

 

Kazakhstan-Gate
In 2005, Bill Clinton and his friend Frank Giustra, a little-known mining financier from Canada, went to Kazakhstan to meet with Nursultan Nazarbayev, a man who Judicial Watch has called "an oppressive communist leader known for human rights violations, corruption and election fraud… the communist dictator of a former Soviet Republic who happens to own one-fifth of the world’s uranium reserves.”


"Shortly afterward,” reports Investors Business Daily, "Clinton's pal won a huge uranium-mining contract that left competing mining companies astounded.” The windfall made Giustra an instant billionaire, whereupon he promptly became the largest donor to the Clinton Global Initiative Foundation, forking over, according to Jo Becker of the New York Times, a whopping quarter-billion dollars.

 

"Is it just us,” asks IBD, "or is there something off about ex-president Bill Clinton using his influence overseas to enrich a pal and then accepting the pal's big donation to his foundation? This looks like a bribery racket.”

 

Then, of course, is Denise Rich, who donated $450,000 to the Clinton's Library, after which Clinton promptly pardoned her ex-husband, commodities-trader Marc Rich, a fugitive for tax evasion and for making illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis.

 

And let’s not forget Vinod Gupta, founder of InfoUSA, a mailing-list company under investigation for fleecing Alzheimer's patients and vulnerable seniors out of their life savings. Gupta spent upwards of $900,000 zooming the Clintons around the world on his corporate jets, helped underwrite for at least $1 million the extravagant millennium New Year's Eve celebration at the White House, and donated a six-figure gift to the Clinton Presidential Library.

 

Then there is Victor Pinchuk, a billionaire steel magnate and one of the richest men in Ukraine, who has contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation?

 

The IBD editorial adds: "10 percent of Clinton's donations for his presidential library are from overseas sources – not just wealthy businessmen, but foreign governments, too. The Saudis gave $10 million, and Kuwait and Brunei also chipped in.” Contributions of unknown amounts have also been made to the Clinton Foundation by, among others, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Qatar. NOTE: Prince Turki bin Feisal was a college classmate of Clinton’s at Georgetown University and then the head of the Saudi Arabian intelligence service.

 

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have asked:

 

▪ Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America’s leading banks?

 

▪ How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill – and therefore herself – have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the U.A.E.?”

 

"It all shows that if there is a loophole,” IBD says, "Clinton will take it. Appearances of impropriety mean nothing to him. But with a new Clinton in the White House, the stakes rise. As money rolls in and the Clintons take power, this specter of an ex-president sitting on a cash-hungry foundation and his wife in a position to dole out favors bears potential for Marcos-like corruption and a sellout of American interests on a scale unknown in the U.S.”

 

Now why do you suppose all these mega-rich people – and hundreds I haven’t mentioned – gave so much money to Bill Clinton? It’s because massive donations are always quid-pro-quos: You give me your millions and when I’m back in the White House, this is what I’ll do for you!

 

The problem is, of course, that the American people have no idea what Bill and Hillary are promising or have promised, or how their deals will affect the safety and security of our country.

 

Hillary-Gate

Among the camarilla surrounding the New York senator is Bruce Lindsey who, among other positions, served as Director of Presidential Personnel and Deputy White House Counsel during President Clinton’s White House years, and is currently the CEO of the Clinton Foundation.

 

When Hillary is asked why the two-million documents pertaining to her own years in the White House – including those about her failed healthcare-reform initiative – haven’t yet been released, she invariably says that Lindsey is "working on it” – ostensibly the same way he’s "working on” releasing the hundreds of pages of White House papers on the former-president’s pardons, as well as a list of donors to the Clinton Library.

 

Translation: Don’t hold your breath!

 

"The Clintons now greatly fear that releasing the documents will only continue to fuel Mr. Obama's candidacy and give greater impetus to the nation's clamor for change,” says Vuoto. "At the very least, the Clintons do not want all those horrid details and familiar names to be placed before the public again: Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the pardons and Monica Lewinsky. They do not want to remind the public that the former president was impeached by Congress and disbarred. Nor do they wish for us to recall that many of the former president's closest associates were imprisoned.”

 

Clearly Hillary has learned well at the master’s knee. In a report published in February by Insight magazine, Hillary was "exposed as top earmarker” – a report confirmed by both Citizens Against Government Waste and The Heritage Foundation. And what are earmarks? Simply, they are funds exchanged for campaign donations. Sound familiar?

 

If you’re keeping a scorecard, Hillary had 261 earmarks, Sen. Obama had 46, and Sen. McCain had none!

 

Then there are the "HillRaisers,” what Jerry Seper of The Washington Times describes as "the elite big-money fundraisers for [Hillary]’s presidential campaign [who] have ties to the 1990s fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband's presidency by offering Democratic donors sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom and other perks inside the White House.”


They are "part of a political landscape,” Seper adds, "to bypass federal laws that cap or limit contributions.” Many do business with the government; while others are lobbyists for foreign governments, including Dubai, Turkey, Ethiopia, the Kurdistan Regional Government, China, Canada, and Taiwan.

 

What has Hillary promised them and other governments? She’s not saying.

 

Federal prosecutor Charles G. LaBella, who investigated the Clinton’s fundraising abuses, concluded that the "intentional conduct and the willful ignorance uncovered by our investigations…resulted in a situation where abuse was rampant, and indeed the norm.” The Clintons relied on the "calculated use of access…as leverage to extract contributions.”

 

Even the über-liberal Democrat Representative Henry Waxman is alarmed. "The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” he said. Last September, he introduced legislation requiring the disclosure of donors to presidential libraries.

 

One former HillRaiser, Norman Hsu, raised $850,000 for Hillary’s 2008 campaign. Hsu is now in jail and the money has been returned. Returned where – to his jail cell? As in every Clinton wrongdoing, this too is fishy and goes hand-in-hand with Hillary’s amazing success in raising big bucks from dishwashers and waiters in New York’s Chinatown. Maybe that’s because, as the Los Angeles Times has speculated, the People’s Republic of China was again passing money to the Clintons, as Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie had done in the 1990s.

 

"Is the Clinton campaign a target of Asian criminal groups looking for political influence? asks journalist Lee Cary in and American Spectator article, "More Peking Duck." If so, how funny – scammers scamming scammers!

 

Hillary Unfit for Presidency

Hillary and her husband’s deep ties to foreign governments – many of them enemies of the U.S. – makes her vulnerable to taking their bribes and capitulating to their agendas, and therefore ineligible for the presidency.

 

Another disqualifier is her now-proven inability to manage her campaign’s finances, a miniscule job compared to the American economy. According to writer Armstrong Jones:

 

▪ She owes her former chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, over $3 million.

 

▪ She owes Penn’s company, MSHC Partners, over $800,000.

 

▪ She owes the phone-banking firm, Spoken Hub, $771,000.

 

▪ Her campaign is strapped for cash.

 

▪ She has failed to pay hundreds of bills to landlords, cleaning services, event coordinators, consultants, pollsters and caterers.

 

▪ She owes her ad person, Mandy Grundwald, nearly $500.000.

 

▪ She owes $292,000 of her own employee’s health insurance premiums.

 

Yet another sign of Hillary’s unfitness is her now-proven inability to manage both her campaign staff and her campaign. According to Jim Vandehei and David Paul Kuhn of Politico.com:

 

▪ She has overseen two major staff shake-ups in two months, first firing her campaign manager, Patty Solis Doyle, and then her chief strategist, Mark Penn.

 

▪ She has consistently underestimated her chief adversary, Barack Obama.

 

▪ She miscalculated the importance of organizing caucus states and was caught flat-footed after failing to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday.

 

▪ She has blown through nearly a half-dozen campaign slogans and failed to put concerns about her credibility to rest.

 

Then there is the matter of Hillary’s complete absence of credibility

 

▪ "I helped bring peace to Northern Ireland." Never happened.

 

▪ "I remember landing under sniper fire…we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Never happened.

 

▪ "It hurts me that in our country…this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.” Never happened.

 

Then there’s Hillary’s remarkable inability to know what’s happening in her very midst. As she’s plying her anti-trade message to win over working-class voters in Pennsylvania, she learns that her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is lobbying for the Colombia Free Trade Pact that she’s railing against. Then she learns that her campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, signed a $40,000- per- month contract with Colombia in 2007 to promote the very same agreement. And, according to Arianna Huffington, that doesn't omit  "a Whitman sampler of Colombian goodies gobbled up by Bill Clinton, including: $800,000 in speaking fees…”

 

With this kind of vetting, don’t be surprised if a new Clinton administration appoints Hugo Chavez to a cabinet post!

 

There is also the matter of Hillary’s personal ongoing scandals, among them the still-unresolved lawsuit of Peter Paul, and the recent ruling (on April 3) by Judge Royce C. Lamberth involving Hillary’s scheme to obtain – illegally – over-900 private FBI files of prominent Republicans during the Clinton administration.

Finally, there is the troubling question of the Clintons avaricious greed. As reported by Kenneth P. Vogel in Politico.com, Bill Clinton’s "presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined…His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined.”
 

According to Pete Sepp, of the nonprofit National Taxpayers Union, "the benefits taxpayers shell out for their care and feeding just don’t make sense anymore. There’s a very flimsy justification for such generosity in many ex-presidents’ cases. In Bill Clinton’s case, there’s zero.”

Perhaps writer Camille Paglia best sums up the reason why a Hillary presidency would be toxic for our country: "What kind of person would go to work for a Clinton in the first place? Everyone knows what they would be getting into: constant war rooms, personal attacks, spin, daily damage control, a boss prone to temper tantrums, placing your own integrity out on the ledge as a shill for a fundamentally dishonest person. I would argue that nobody who hasn't already sold their soul years ago would ever want to be a part of that mess.”

Joan Swirsky, is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. A New York-based author and journalist, she was formerly a longtime health-and-science and feature writer for The New York Times Long Island section. She is the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards...

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review