This morning’s news reported former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s reaction to the possibility of the Justice Department investigating her. Quoting Ms. Clinton: Commencing an investigation would be “a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, some authoritarian regime where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated.” Wow – she equates her being investigated to the destruction of democracy!
That’s sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. She certainly supports the investigation of the Trump campaign, believing it worked with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election and deny her the presidency. I don’t know if Ms. Clinton violated any laws. From the many articles I’ve reviewed the 2009 Uranium One sale was approved by many others, including President Obama. But it’s ludicrous to state (read as “defies common sense”) that an investigation of her will damage this country and its values.
She proclaims her innocence and the lack of any evidence against her. How is that different from the investigation of President Trump and the public lynching of Judge Moore? Is she above the law or an honest inquiry? In a democracy, investigations reveal facts. If Ms. Clinton did nothing improper, she won’t face any consequences. In a dictatorship, there would be no need for an investigation – she’d go directly to a jail cell.
Let’s examine some facts. In 2016 the audited net assets of the Clinton Foundation was $426,238,938. On 4/29/15, the NY Times disclosed a Clinton “Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.” The same article reported the failure to “disclose $2.35 million in donations from the chairman of Uranium One.” $131 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation were made by one man, Frank Giustra, the founder of Uranium One. Candidate Trump labeled the Foundation as “the most corrupt enterprise in political history.” You can take a look at http://www.dailywire.com/news/8561/7-things-you-need-know-about-clinton-foundation-aaron-bandler.
So who’s right about the Clinton Foundation? I don’t know but I’d like to. I’m not disputing the good works done by the Clinton Foundation. Where is the assurance that Ms. Clinton did not personally benefit from, or sell her influence in return for, donations to the Foundation? Career politicians who claimed to be “dead broke” in 2000 very quickly piled up hundreds of millions in Foundation dollars. Doesn’t that smell just a bit? Sorry, my common sense says an investigation is warranted and may actually help the perception of Ms. Clinton and her Foundation’s money . . . if she proves as pure as she’d like us to believe.