Tweet
I can not see how ANYONE could support either of these corrupt people, the Clinton's, once they see how many bribes they have taken to sell out the American people. Even national security means NOTHING to them.
ROGER’S RULES
Clinton Cash, Or, It’s Always Worse Than You Think
BY ROGER KIMBALL MAY 13, 2016
CHAT 250 COMMENTS
[COLOR=#666666][FONT=Open Sans][SIZE=16px] Yesterday, in his column for PJ Media, my friend Ron Radosh, the distinguished historian, outlined the case for believing that Hillary Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” compared to Donald Trump. Ron says that he is “fully aware” of Hillary’s liabilities, yet concludes that “on foreign policy, there is more hope that [she] will take a course that asserts American leadership abroad.”
Ron is not alone in asserting this. Several prominent conservatives have, with varying degrees of hesitation (not to say repugnance), embraced Hillary Clinton as the less bad alternative to Donald Trump. A new film, which will debut Monday at Cannes, may force them to reconsider that judgment.
Clinton Cash, the documentary film which I saw in previews yesterday, is based on the best-selling exposé of the same name by Peter Schweizer, the tireless investigative journalist who has devoted himself to confronting political corruption and crony capitalism regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrators. Produced by Breitbart’s Stephen K. Bannon and directed by M. A. Taylor, Clinton Cash is crisply narrated by Schweizer and provides a relentless and devastating portrait of brazen financial venality in exchange for political favors.
I read through Clinton Cash quickly when it came out last May. This was no right-wing hit job (as the Clinton campaign asserted) but rather a methodical and exhaustively sourced chronicle of how the Clintons parlayed Bill’s celebrity, Hillary’s position as Secretary of State and her possible future tenure as President of the United States, into a veritable niagara of cash, eye-popping speaking fees for Bill—$250,000, $500,000, even $750,000 a pop—and millions upon millions directed to the Clinton Foundation and its offshoots. Where was the money coming from? From multinational corporations that needed a favor, shady foreign financiers and dubious state entities in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South America, and elsewhere.
SPONSORED
Are you worried about “money in politics”? Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years. The Associated Press estimated that their net worth when they left the White House in 2000 was zero (really, minus $500K). Now they are worth about $200 million. How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?
Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash is a nauseating experience. At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.
Do you doubt the authority of Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution? How about The New York Times, then? Last year, following up with independent investigative research based on revelations inClinton Cash, the Times published a long and devastating story about the how the Clintons sold out some twenty percent of American uranium assets to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin. “At the heart of the tale,” the Times reported,
[SIZE=20px]
ROGER’S RULES
Clinton Cash, Or, It’s Always Worse Than You Think
BY ROGER KIMBALL MAY 13, 2016CHAT 250 COMMENTS
[COLOR=#666666][FONT=Open Sans][SIZE=16px] Yesterday, in his column for PJ Media, my friend Ron Radosh, the distinguished historian, outlined the case for believing that Hillary Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” compared to Donald Trump. Ron says that he is “fully aware” of Hillary’s liabilities, yet concludes that “on foreign policy, there is more hope that [she] will take a course that asserts American leadership abroad.”
Ron is not alone in asserting this. Several prominent conservatives have, with varying degrees of hesitation (not to say repugnance), embraced Hillary Clinton as the less bad alternative to Donald Trump. A new film, which will debut Monday at Cannes, may force them to reconsider that judgment.
Clinton Cash, the documentary film which I saw in previews yesterday, is based on the best-selling exposé of the same name by Peter Schweizer, the tireless investigative journalist who has devoted himself to confronting political corruption and crony capitalism regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrators. Produced by Breitbart’s Stephen K. Bannon and directed by M. A. Taylor, Clinton Cash is crisply narrated by Schweizer and provides a relentless and devastating portrait of brazen financial venality in exchange for political favors.
I read through Clinton Cash quickly when it came out last May. This was no right-wing hit job (as the Clinton campaign asserted) but rather a methodical and exhaustively sourced chronicle of how the Clintons parlayed Bill’s celebrity, Hillary’s position as Secretary of State and her possible future tenure as President of the United States, into a veritable niagara of cash, eye-popping speaking fees for Bill—$250,000, $500,000, even $750,000 a pop—and millions upon millions directed to the Clinton Foundation and its offshoots. Where was the money coming from? From multinational corporations that needed a favor, shady foreign financiers and dubious state entities in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South America, and elsewhere.
SPONSORED
Are you worried about “money in politics”? Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years. The Associated Press estimated that their net worth when they left the White House in 2000 was zero (really, minus $500K). Now they are worth about $200 million. How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?
Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash is a nauseating experience. At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.
Do you doubt the authority of Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution? How about The New York Times, then? Last year, following up with independent investigative research based on revelations inClinton Cash, the Times published a long and devastating story about the how the Clintons sold out some twenty percent of American uranium assets to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin. “At the heart of the tale,” the Times reported,
[SIZE=20px]
Comment