Cash for access, Pay for policy, call it what you want


Hillary Clinton has never been great at understanding that, in politics, perception almost always equals reality. Witness this story that just broke from the Associated Press:

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

So, er, okay.

Let’s stipulate two things here before I go any further:

1. Correlation is not causation.

2. Quid pro quos are very, very, very hard to prove.

But, COME ON, MAN. It is literally impossible to look at those two paragraphs and not raise your eyebrows. Half of all of the nongovernmental people Clinton either met with or spoke to on the phone during her four years at the State Department were donors to the Clinton Foundation! HALF.

And those 85 people donated $156 million, which, according to my calculator, breaks down to an average contribution just north of $1.8 million. (Yes, I know that not everyone gave the same amount.)

It just plain looks bad. Really bad.

All by itself it means nothing, but it added to all the other drama, it’s more fuel for the fire.


Washington Post

  • sandalwood789

    Any other woman who did what Clinton has done would be locked up and sharing a cell with a woman called Billie-Jo.

  • Bob Dazzler

    Yes just a crook by most peoples standards. Gee a wonderful Madam President?

    • biscuit barrel

      You do know the Clinton Foundation is run for charitable causes. It has a staff of 400 plus interns. It raises many millions from donors and other charitable foundations.

      • disqus_DU7T1pNtzv

        and that they distribute a full 15% of donations to “charity” with the balance funding Bill, Chelsea, Hillary and their friends lifestyles.

        • biscuit barrel

          have you read their tax returns ?
          The 15% you say is wrong , as its only covers amounts ‘donated to outside charities’
          CF does most of its spending directly, ie organises and runs the programs it supports.

          • disqus_DU7T1pNtzv

            no, but even charity navigator has given up on trying to decipher their accounts. The clinton’s have a long history of obfuscation and dishonesty and every day there’s more evidence of unethical (but borderline legal) behaviour, The question is what is she hiding now?


          • Rebecca

            From the American Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Watch on 24 August:
            “The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity… they are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really [good]. It only costs them $2 to raise $100.”

            However, it’s worth looking past the AP calculations to look at donations e.g. from the Saudis and associates who gave tens of millions. Maybe because they are so impressed by the foundation’s work- except that it includes empowerment of women and gay issues that are harshly opposed by the Saudi donors. So why did they donate again? Meanwhile Assange continues to assert that Wikileaks has more to come on HRC.

          • disqus_DU7T1pNtzv

            With decades of questionable behaviour behind them (bill had his law license suspended 5yrs for dishonesty) they should’ve fully stepped back from the charity. As it stands there’s too much crossover between the charity and her state duties. Lets not forget a number of her staff worked for both entities simultaneously and there are “donations” from some pretty despicable people or their massive spike in personal speaking fees when she became secretary of state. Their estimated net worth of $110m is also pretty interesting for a “state” employee considering they were broke when Bill left the Whitehouse.

          • Rebecca

            The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good, but I agree that the possibility of corruption/favoritism always will exist whenever somebody in a position of power also is involved in a foundation named after them, or even owns shares in the NZ context. The solution is for the politician to wall themselves off via blind trust or other cutoff. Bill Clinton also agrees with you on this and said so in his open letter on Tuesday.

          • disqus_DU7T1pNtzv

            Mostly agree with you but these two are professional politicians and the perception issue (like Hillary’s email server) should’ve been pretty obvious from the outset. When taken in context of their past/overall behaviour, I question the timing and motivation behind Bill’s letter and wonder why the blind trust or cutoff wasn’t used earlier? It doesn’t help that Hillary refuses to hold open press conferences (263 days and counting), answer questions about the foundation, and needed to be sued by AP after delaying release of the meetings since its initial request in 2010.

          • Rebecca

            Historically she didn’t always do well in press conferences so maybe it’s seen as a lesser evil simply to avoid them, especially with polls continuing to predict a decisive win for her.

          • biscuit barrel

            Bill Clintons law license was suspended because of his admitted lie in the Lewinsky case. That was in 2000. he hadnt been a practicing lawyer since 83.

      • Rightsideofthebed

        I didn’t realise that Bill was allowed anywhere near an organisation that had interns. Surely Hillary put him on some sort of leash – or is she enabling again?

  • 10cents

    2 weeks ago I thought trump was toast. Not any more. Clinton is going to lose, largely via her own dishonesty.

    • Curious

      Sorry to burst your bubble but she will be the next CIC. The Rebublicans have blown the most winable election in history but nominating the ONLY person who she could win against.

      • 10cents

        I agree Trump has numerous flaws that in any normal election would be fatal, but this time I’m not so sure. Clinton has so many skeletons in the closet that are starting to get dragged out that she may well find herself buried in bones. Time will tell I guess.

        • biscuit barrel

          Thats the job of the opposing party. Its the same every election even here. Thats why one side says, Angry Andy is a buffon while the other says Key is a heartless privatiser selling our kids canned laughter for profit.
          The trouble with such outsize stories only the allready committed voters believe them.

    • XCIA

      Trump will never see the inside of the Oval Office.

  • Wheninrome

    An aside she had a fall back in time (not that far) the question remains did she fall or was she pushed, does this event create issues for her such as have been suggested regarding her ongoing health.

  • shykiwibloke

    If just one visitor had donated to Trump in the same position he would be howled down by the MSM. Psychiatrists waiting rooms must be full of journo’s trying to reconcile their view of the world with reality at the mo.

  • Kerry

    CROOK plain and simple. If anyone else did this they would be gone.

  • biscuit barrel

    Just some comparisons
    Clinton Foundation has 7000 donors She met with 60 or 1%,
    Just looking at one ‘pay for play’ donor.
    Muhammad Yunus, economist from Bangladesh who pioneered the concepts of microcredit and microfinance as a way to fight poverty, and founded Grameen Bank. For those efforts, Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.
    Clinton has known him for 30 years
    So a Nobel peace prize winner is a nefarious donor ?

    • Spiker

      No doubt there are plenty of examples of legit donors. Massive donations from the Saudis & other middle eastern countries such as the Qataris UE etc are just because they support the Clintons chivalrous aims? Sorry, can’t buy that at all.

    • Gazza

      Watch this and then come back and comment, I guarantee it will make you think again…

    • PersonOfColor:WHITE

      According to the Financial Times, beginning in 2007, tensions began between Yunus and Bangladesh’s government when Yunus “suggested he might establish his own political party to clean up Bangladesh’s public life.” Yunus was ultimately forced out of his managing director position at Grameen Bank in 2011 just months after the prime minister publicly denigrated microlenders as “bloodsuckers of the poor.” During that period, Clinton repeatedly received requests for help from Yunus, spoke with him on the phone, and after he was ousted met with him and publicly urged the government to halt their efforts to “seize control of Grameen Bank’s effort to find new leaders.”

    • Intrigued

      We can all cherry pick amongst the donors though biscuit barrel. Your example is irrelevant. Just as this one might be.

      How about Frank Giustra’s donations to the Clinton Foundation, through the various entities he controls, of $2.6million after he secured his Kazakstan uranium deals which were allegedly facilitated by Hillary in her role as Secretary of State. Various reports suggest that that resulted in Giustra and his partners gaining control of one-fifth of the entire U.S. uranium production capacity. Giustra is also on the Board of CF by the way and has many other commercial ties to the Clintons too. That raises a few questions about conflicts of interests and potential for impropriety doesn’t it?

      With all that is coming out of the US at the moment about the pay for play allegations there is a lot of smoke and the possibility of a nasty big fire for Hillary and her campaign and now Assange is planning another big Wikileaks release on Clinton before the election.

      The reality is that it is hard to deny the public perception is that Hillary lies and there has been ‘pay for play’ or ‘cash for favours’ involving Hillary as Secretary of State and her relationship with donors to the Clinton Foundation.

      That it might be evident amongst just 1% of the donors as you suggest is irrelevant. It only needs to happen once.

      The perception of impropriety ought to have the Democrats consigning her presidential run to the dustbin. It ought to make Americans of every political persuasion kick her bid for POTUS to the kerb.

      Let’s face it though with all the apologists for her engaging in ethical gymnastics over all the facts coming out, she’ll probably get away with it. She has a mighty war chest for her run, the weight of Hollywood, the Black Lives Matters lot and SJW, the left leaning MSM and plenty of big corporate donors behind her….

      Her plan appears to be to run down the clock and deflect attention away from the detail as much as possible. She might just pull it off, which will make apologists for her very happy indeed.

      One can’t help the conclusion that she would never ever get away with this if she wasn’t a Democrat, part of the establishment and know where all the bodies are buried.

      Frankly the whole thing stinks.

  • cows4me

    The only way the vile cankles will win is to rig the election and her party of crooks are more than capable in doing this. The USA will erupt in civil war if nothing chances come the election, the woman is as bent as a post staple and would totally destroy the USA.

  • Tiger

    The difference between the two candidates for President are: One candidate, you know what you are getting, the other, not so much.
    The more there are clouds of uncertainty around Hills the more doubt is sewn. Unless you are a tribal voter.

  • Gazza

    I urge everyone to watch this…

    • biscuit barrel

      How can that be a news site , when its Chairman suddenly becomes Trumps campaign director – his 3rd so far, Im sure he will last 2 months.

      • Gazza

        Does not make the doco less truthful and lets not forget the Clintons connections with MSM.

  • Bev Standring

    For goodness sake, all that proves is she is a fabulous fund raiser, now it’s biting her in the arse, bet she didn’t foresee that little hiccup, (tongue in cheek), main line media doing a great job of scaremongering, once again, would you rather see Trump triumph? God forbid his inauguration is on a windy day!!!!!

  • Andy

    Newt Gingrich is no better. He has a consultancy set up to gain access to him.

    • kehua

      He is not running for President, so it pales in comparison to the Democratic liar HRC, the fact Huma Abiden was the broker whilst in the employ of both Clinton Foundation and the State Dept says it all really.